hirap gumawa ng research paper

always remember



ako budoy

panu tanggalin ang pimpol

gumamit ng panoxyl

Another Answer:
Huwag kumain ng mga mamantikang pagkain (proven fact)
Huwag hawakan ang mukha kung hindi siguradong malinis ang kamay (proven fact)
Huwag titirisin ang tigyawat lalong mamamaga at maiimpeksyon at para maiwasan ang pag-iwan nito ng peklat na mahirap alisin.
Maghilamos gamit lang ang mild soap.
Huwag gumamit ng mga gamot o anumang produktong hindi inireseta ng doktor o kaya'y hindi sigurado sa kalalabasan
Huwag magpuyat

Another Answer:
First thing to do is go to your dermatologist.
pabayaan lang wag gagalawin
pag acne bulgaris na talaga o kin disease na magpakonsulta muna sa dermatologist, pero pag di pa naman bawasan ang pagkain ng mamantika at matatabang pagkain, dagdagan ang fruits and vegetables sa pagkain, wag din kalimutang maghilamos bago matulog at uminom ng 8 glasses ng tubig araw araw.
ang kalamansi ay makakatulong sa pag papa alis ng tagyawat.
ipahid lamang ito sa iyong muka,kung ito ay mahapdi dampiaan lamang ng bulak.
isa ring paraan ng pag tatangal ng tigyawat ay ang pag papakulo ng mainit na tubig at ihaplos sa iyong muka...

alam mo dont worry! wag nyo lang gala-galawin atska kpag first ments nyo ung panti mo labhan mo pero wag mong pigain ng husto kasi sasakit ang tiyan mo at pagkatapos ipunas mo sa mukha mo..and thats true..
gumamit ng panoxyl

Another Answer:
Huwag kumain ng mga mamantikang pagkain (proven fact)
Huwag hawakan ang mukha kung hindi siguradong malinis ang kamay (proven fact)
Huwag titirisin ang tigyawat lalong mamamaga at maiimpeksyon at para maiwasan ang pag-iwan nito ng peklat na mahirap alisin.
Maghilamos gamit lang ang mild soap.
Huwag gumamit ng mga gamot o anumang produktong hindi inireseta ng doktor o kaya'y hindi sigurado sa kalalabasan
Huwag magpuyat

Another Answer:
First thing to do is go to your dermatologist.
Bumili ka ng dalacin C sa mercury drugs at saka eskinol tapos ihalo mo ung dalacin c sa eskinol, tanggalin mo sa capsule ung dalacin c ung mismong laman ng capsule ang hahalo mo sa eskinol tapos pwede mo nagn ipahid sa mukha..effective un kasi na try ko na.
sagpa
Ano ang gamot sa pimples

1. Iwasang pisain ang pimples. Ito ay nagiging dahilan ng infection at nag iiwan ito ng peklat.
2. Gumamit ng skin-care product na bagay sa tipo ng iyong balat - Kasi ang samasamang hormonal activity, bacteriang naiipon sa mukha at shedding of dead skin cells nagiging dahilan ng pimples. Kung maging ugali mo ang maglinis ng mukha gumamit ng mga skin-care product na bagay sa tipo ng balat mo ay maiiwasan ang pimples.
3. Maaaring umabot ng isang buwan bago tuluyang maalis ang pimples mo lalo na kung iiwasan mong pisain ang mga ito.
4. Gumamit ng clay mask dalawang beses sa isang linggo, mabisa ito lalo na kung prone ka sa pimples
5. Kung hindi mo maiwasang pisain ang pimples mo. Siguraduhin mong malinis ang kamay mo.
6. Gumamit ng gamut sa pimples na may benzol peroxide. Iwasan mo lang whag malagyan ang paligid nito na walang pimples.
7. Iwasang kumain ng malalangis na pagkain.
8. Ugaliing uminom 1. 5 liter ng tubig araw-araw. Makakatulong ito para ma hydrate ang balat mo.
9. Gumamit ng oil-free cosmetics
10. Ugaling alisin ang make-up at maglinis ng mukha mo bago matulog
11. Iwasan ang mga produktong matatapang sa mukha.
12. Iwasan maglagay ng foundation kung may acne ka sa mukha
13. Siguraduhing malinis ang mga brush na ginagamit mo sa pag-lalagay ng make-up.
Another answer:

..para maalis ang nakakairitang 'PIMPLES' juzt make sure na malinis lagi ang mukha nyo ito ang tips para mawala ang 'PIMPLES'..


;MAGHILAMOS NG MALIGAMGAM NA TUBIG;

;PAGKATAPOS GUMAMIT kayo NG SABON NA ANTI-BACTERIAL; LIKE''' 'SAFEGUARD WHITE''', '''''KATIALIS SOAP''' AFFORD NYO NAMAN ANG KATIALIS SOAP MABIBILI NYO LANG SA MGA BOTIKA AS LOW 45pesos, KAYA '''''SULFUR SOAP'''' AS LOW 30pesos

;wag nyo agad banlawan yung sabon ibabad nyo muna sa mukha nyo kahit 5-7 minutes..

;after 5-7minutes banlawan nyo na ng maligamgam na tubig...

;pagkatapos na banlawan wag nyo munang pupunasan stay nyo muna sa face nyo ung maligamgam na tubig...? para mainitan ung mga pimples para madaling mag dry ung pimples..

..?pagkatapos magpahid kayo ng'''calamansi'''' para mas lalong mag dry agad ung mga pimples nyo..? wag nyo babanlawan stay nyo lang sa face nyo..? maglagay kayo ng ''''calamansi''' sa face nyo 2 times a day para effective talaga..? maglagay kayo sa umaga hanggang tanghali..? gabi hanggang umaga..?

but dont worry hindi naman magpepeklat ung mga pimples nyo pag gumamit kayo ng ;'''calamansi'''' mas kikinis pa nga mukha nyo


gawin nyo lang tong mga tips koh im sure effective talaga..? trust me..

Another Answer:

panoxyl

Ang mas magandang gamitin ng pimples ay eskenol na liquid.

Maraming dahilan kung bakit nagkaka-pimples pero karamihan dito ay sanhi ng pagbabara ng pores sa mukha sanhi ng dumi o natural na langis ng ating balat.

Maari ring ang dahilan nito ay ang klima, hangin o dumi (buhangin) sa Saudi na may ibang reaksyon sa iyong balat. Mas mabuting gawin ay palaging maghilamos bago matulog o kung maaari ay kahit nasa opisina.

Kung ikaw naman ay nagpalit ng sabon maari ding hinde ka hiyang kaya kung maghihilamos ka ay subukan mo munang maligamgam na tubig lang at walang sabon. Gawin ito ng 1 linggo at tingnan kung bahagyang mawawala ang mga pimples.

New Age beliefs

Many assertions about the year 2012 form part of a non-codified collection of New Age beliefs about ancient Maya wisdom and spirituality.[4][40][41] Archaeoastronomer Anthony Aveni says that while the idea of "balancing the cosmos" was prominent in ancient Maya literature, the 2012 phenomenon does not draw from those traditions. Instead, it is bound up with American concepts such as the New Age movement, millenarianism, and the belief in secret knowledge from distant times and places.[42] Established themes found in 2012 literature include "suspicion towards mainstream Western culture," the idea of spiritual evolution, and the possibility of leading the world into the New Age by individual example or by a group's joined consciousness. The general intent of this literature is not to warn of impending doom but "to foster counter-cultural sympathies and eventually socio-political and 'spiritual' activism".[2] Aveni, who has studied New Age and SETI communities, describes 2012 narratives as the product of a "disconnected" society: "Unable to find spiritual answers to life's big questions within ourselves, we turn outward to imagined entities that lie far off in space or time—entities that just might be in possession of superior knowledge."[43]
Origins
In 1975, the ending of b'ak'tun 13 became the subject of speculation by several New Age authors, who asserted it would correspond with a global "transformation of consciousness". In Mexico Mystique: The Coming Sixth Age of Consciousness, Frank Waters tied Coe's original date of December 24, 2011,[Note d] to astrology and the prophecies of the Hopi,[44] while both José Argüelles (in The Transformative Vision)[45] and Terence McKenna (in The Invisible Landscape)[46][47] discussed the significance of the year 2012, and makes reference to Dec. 21, 2012.
In 1983, with the publication of Robert J. Sharer's revised table of date correlations in the 4th edition of Morley's The Ancient Maya,[Note d] that each became convinced that December 21, 2012, had significant meaning. By 1987, the year in which he organized the Harmonic Convergence event, Arguelles was using the date December 21, 2012 in The Mayan Factor: Path Beyond Technology.[48][49] He claimed that on August 13, 3113 BC the Earth began a passage through a "galactic synchronization beam" that emanated from the center of our galaxy, that it would pass through this beam during a period of 5200 tuns (Maya cycles of 360 days each), and that this beam would result in "total synchronization" and "galactic entrainment" of individuals "plugged into the Earth's electromagnetic battery" by 13.0.0.0.0 (Dec. 21, 2012). He believed that the Maya aligned their calendar to correspond to this phenomenon.[50] Anthony Aveni has dismissed all of these ideas.[51]
Galactic alignment
There is no significant astronomical event tied to the Long Count's start date.[52] However, its supposed end date has been tied to astronomical phenomena by esoteric, fringe, and New Age literature that places great significance on astrology. Chief among these is the concept of the "galactic alignment."
Precession
In the Solar System, the planets and the Sun lie roughly within the same flat plane, known as the plane of the ecliptic. From our perspective on Earth, the ecliptic is the path taken by the Sun across the sky over the course of the year. The twelve constellations that line the ecliptic are known as the zodiac and, annually, the Sun passes through all of them in turn. Additionally, over time, the Sun's annual cycle appears to recede very slowly backward by one degree every 72 years, or by one constellation every 2,160 years. This backward movement, called "precession", is due to a slight wobble in the Earth's axis as it spins, and can be compared to the way a spinning top wobbles as it slows down.[53] Over the course of 25,800 years, a period often called a Great Year, the Sun completes a full, 360-degree backward circuit through the zodiac.[53] In Western astrological traditions, precession is measured from the March equinox, or the point at which the Sun is exactly halfway between its lowest and highest points in the sky. Presently, the Sun's March equinox position is in the constellation Pisces and is moving back into Aquarius. This signals the end of one astrological age (the Age of Pisces) and the beginning of another (the Age of Aquarius).[54]
Similarly, the Sun's December solstice position (in the northern hemisphere, the lowest point on its annual path; in the southern hemisphere, the highest) is currently in the constellation of Sagittarius, one of two constellations in which the zodiac intersects with the Milky Way.[55] Every year, on the December solstice, the Sun and the Milky Way, from the surface of the Earth, appear to come into alignment, and every year, precession causes a slight shift in the Sun's position in the Milky Way. Given that the Milky Way is between 10° and 20° wide, it takes between 700 and 1400 years for the Sun's December solstice position to precess through it.[56] It is currently about halfway through the Milky Way, crossing the galactic equator.[57] In 2012, the Sun's December solstice will fall on December 21.
Mysticism


The Milky Way near Cygnus showing the lane of the Dark Rift, which the Maya called the Xibalba be or "Black Road"
Mystical speculations about the precession of the equinoxes and the Sun's proximity to the center of the Milky Way appeared in Hamlet's Mill (1969) by Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Deschend. These were quoted and expanded upon by Terence and Dennis McKenna in The Invisible Landscape (1975). The significance of a future "galactic alignment" was noted in 1991 by astrologer Raymond Mardyks, who asserted that the winter solstice would align with the galactic plane in 1998/1999, writing that an event that "only occurs once each 26,000 year cycle and would be most definitely of utmost significance to the top flight ancient astrologers."[58] Astrologer Bruce Scofield notes, "The Milky Way crossing of the winter solstice is something that has been neglected by Western astrologers, with a few exceptions. Charles Jayne made a very early reference to it, and in the 1970s Rob Hand mentioned it in his talks on precession but didn't elaborate on it. Ray Mardyks later made a point of it, and after that John [Major] Jenkins, myself, and Daniel Giamario began to talk about it."[59]
Adherents to the idea, following a theory first proposed by Munro Edmonson,[60] allege that the Maya based their calendar on observations of the Great Rift or Dark Rift, a band of dark dust clouds in the Milky Way, which, according to some scholars, the Maya called the Xibalba be or "Black Road."[61] John Major Jenkins claims that the Maya were aware of where the ecliptic intersected the Black Road and gave this position in the sky a special significance in their cosmology.[62] According to Jenkins, precession will align the Sun precisely with the galactic equator at the 2012 winter solstice.[62] Jenkins claimed that the classical Maya anticipated this conjunction and celebrated it as the harbinger of a profound spiritual transition for mankind.[63] New Age proponents of the galactic alignment hypothesis argue that, just as astrology uses the positions of stars and planets to make claims of future events, the Mayans plotted their calendars with the objective of preparing for significant world events.[64] Jenkins attributes the insights of ancient Maya shamans about the galactic center to their use of psilocybin mushrooms, psychoactive toads, and other psychedelics.[65] Jenkins also associates the Xibalba be with a "world tree", drawing on studies of contemporary (not ancient) Maya cosmology.[66]
Criticism
Astronomers such as David Morrison argue that the galactic equator is an entirely arbitrary line and can never be precisely drawn, because it is impossible to determine the Milky Way's exact boundaries, which vary depending on clarity of view. Jenkins claims he drew his conclusions about the location of the galactic equator from observations taken at above 11,000 feet (3,400 m), an altitude that gives a clearer image of the Milky Way than Mayans had access to.[50] Furthermore, since the Sun is half a degree wide, it requires 36 years for it to precess across any single point. Jenkins himself notes that even given this determined location for the line of the galactic equator, its most precise convergence with the center of the Sun already occurred in 1998, and so asserts that, rather than 2012, the galactic alignment instead focuses on a multi-year period centred on 1998.[67][68][69]
There is no clear evidence that the classic Maya were aware of precession. Some Maya scholars, such as Barbara MacLeod,[34] Michael Grofe,[70] Eva Hunt, Gordon Brotherston, and Anthony Aveni,[71] have suggested that some Mayan holy dates were timed to precessional cycles, but scholarly opinion on the subject remains divided.[22] There is also little evidence, archaeological or historical, that the Maya placed any importance on solstices or equinoxes.[22][72] It is possible that only the early Mesoamericans observed solstices,[73] but this is also a disputed issue among Mayanists.[22][72] There is also no evidence that the classic Maya attached any importance to the Milky Way; there is no glyph in their writing system to represent it, and no astronomical or chronological table tied to it.[74]
Timewave zero and the I Ching


A screenshot of the "Timewave Zero" software
"Timewave zero" is a numerological formula that purports to calculate the ebb and flow of "novelty", defined as increase over time in the universe's interconnectedness, or organized complexity.[75] According to Terence McKenna, the universe has a teleological attractor at the end of time that increases interconnectedness, eventually reaching a singularity of infinite complexity in 2012, at which point anything and everything imaginable will occur simultaneously. He conceived this idea over several years in the early to mid-1970s while using psilocybin mushrooms and DMT.[75]
McKenna expressed "novelty" in a computer program which purportedly produces a waveform known as "timewave zero" or the "timewave". Based on McKenna's interpretation of the King Wen sequence of the I Ching,[46] the graph appears to show great periods of novelty corresponding with major shifts in humanity's biological and sociocultural evolution. He believed that the events of any given time are recursively related to the events of other times, and chose the atomic bombing of Hiroshima as the basis for calculating his end date of November 2012. When he later discovered this date's proximity to the end of the 13th b'ak'tun of the Maya calendar, he revised his hypothesis so that the two dates matched.[76]
The first edition of The Invisible Landscape refers to 2012 (but no specific day during the year) only twice. In the 1993 second edition, McKenna employed Sharer's date[Note d] of December 21, 2012 throughout.[2]
Other concepts


Pic de Bugarach, Camps-sur-l'Agly, France; a target of "esoterics" who believe that some great transition will occur in 2012
In India, the guru Kalki Bhagavan has promoted 2012 as a "deadline" for human enlightenment since at least 1998.[77] Over 15 million people consider Bhagavan to be the incarnation of the god Vishnu and believe that 2012 marks the end of the Kali Yuga, or degenerate age.[78]
In 2006, author Daniel Pinchbeck popularized New Age concepts about this date in his book 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, linking b'ak'tun 13 to beliefs in crop circles, alien abduction, and personal revelations based on the use of hallucinogenic drugs and mediumship.[79][80] Pinchbeck claims to discern a "growing realization that materialism and the rational, empirical worldview that comes with it has reached its expiration date ... [w]e're on the verge of transitioning to a dispensation of consciousness that's more intuitive, mystical and shamanic."[5]
Beginning in 2000, the small French village of Bugarach, population 189, began receiving visits from "esoterics"—mystic believers who have concluded that the local mountain, Pic de Bugarach, is the ideal location to weather the transformative events of 2012. In 2011, the local mayor, Jean-Pierre Delord, began voicing fears to the international press that the small town would be overwhelmed by an influx of thousands of visitors in 2012, even suggesting he may call in the army.[81][82]
Doomsday theories



Sagittarius A*, taken by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory
A far more apocalyptic view of the year 2012 that has spread in various media describes the end of the world or of human civilization on that date. This view has been promulgated by many hoax pages on the Internet, particularly on YouTube.[83] The History Channel has aired a handful of special series on doomsday that include analysis of 2012 theories, such as Decoding the Past (2005–2007), 2012, End of Days (2006), Last Days on Earth (2006), Seven Signs of the Apocalypse (2007), and Nostradamus 2012 (2008).[84] In his book 2012: It's Not the End of the World Peter Lemesurier has listed many misleading statements in these programs.[85] The Discovery Channel also aired 2012 Apocalypse in 2009, suggesting that massive solar storms, magnetic pole reversal, earthquakes, supervolcanoes, and other drastic natural events may occur in 2012.[86] Author Graham Hancock, in his book Fingerprints of the Gods, interpreted Coe's remarks in Breaking the Maya Code[87] as evidence for the prophecy of a global cataclysm.[88]
Other alignments
Some people have interpreted the galactic alignment apocalyptically, claiming that when it occurs, it will somehow create a combined gravitational effect between the Sun and the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy (known as Sagittarius A*), thus creating havoc on Earth.[89] Apart from the fact noted above that the "galactic alignment" already happened in 1998, the Sun's apparent path through the zodiac as seen from Earth does not take it near the true galactic center, but rather several degrees above it.[57] Even if this were not the case, Sagittarius A* is 30,000 light years from Earth, and would have to be more than 6 million times closer to cause any gravitational disruption to Earth's Solar System.[90][91] This reading of the alignment was included on the History Channel documentary, Decoding the Past. However, John Major Jenkins has complained that a science fiction writer co-authored the documentary, and he went on to characterize it as "45 minutes of unabashed doomsday hype and the worst kind of inane sensationalism".[92]
Some believers in a 2012 doomsday have used the term "galactic alignment" to describe a very different phenomenon proposed by some scientists to explain a pattern in mass extinctions supposedly observed in the fossil record.[93] According to this hypothesis, mass extinctions are not random, but recur every 26 million years. To account for this, it suggests that vertical oscillations made by the Sun on its 250-million-year orbit of the galactic center cause it to regularly pass through the galactic plane. When the Sun's orbit takes it outside the galactic plane which bisects the galactic disc, the influence of the galactic tide is weaker. However, when re-entering the galactic disc—as it does every 20–25 million years—it comes under the influence of the far stronger "disc tides", which, according to mathematical models, increase the flux of Oort cloud comets into the inner Solar System by a factor of 4, thus leading to a massive increase in the likelihood of a devastating comet impact.[94] However, this "alignment" takes place over tens of millions of years, and could never be timed to an exact date.[95] Evidence shows that the Sun passed through the plane bisecting the galactic disc only three million years ago and is now moving farther above it.[96]
A third suggested alignment is some sort of planetary conjunction occurring on December 21, 2012; however, there will be no conjunction on that date.[97] Multi-planet alignments did occur in both 2000 and 2010, each with no ill result for the Earth.[98] Jupiter is the largest planet in the Solar System; larger than all other planets combined. When Jupiter is near opposition, the Earth experiences less than 1% the gravitational force it feels daily from the Moon.[99]
Geomagnetic reversal
Another idea tied to 2012 involves a geomagnetic reversal (often incorrectly referred to as a pole shift by proponents), possibly triggered by a massive solar flare, that would release an energy equal to 100 billion atomic bombs.[100] This belief is supposedly supported by observations that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening,[101] which could precede a reversal of the north and south magnetic poles.
Critics, however, claim that geomagnetic reversals take up to 7,000 years to complete, and do not start on any particular date.[102] Furthermore, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration now predicts that the solar maximum will peak in May 2013, not 2012, and that it will be fairly weak, with a below-average number of sunspots.[103] In any case, there is no scientific evidence linking a solar maximum to a geomagnetic reversal, which is driven by forces entirely within the Earth.[104] Instead, a solar maximum would be mostly notable for its effects on satellite and cellular phone communications.[105] David Morrison attributes the rise of the solar storm idea to physicist and science popularizer Michio Kaku, who claimed in an interview with Fox News that a solar peak in 2012 could be disastrous for orbiting satellites.[83]
Planet X/Nibiru
Main article: Nibiru collision
Some proponents of doomsday in 2012 claim that a planet called Planet X, or Nibiru, will collide with or pass by Earth in that year. This idea, which has appeared in various forms since 1995, initially predicted Doomsday in May, 2003, but proponents later abandoned that date after it passed without incident.[106] The idea originated from claims of channeling of alien beings and has been widely ridiculed.[106][107] Astronomers have calculated that such an object so close to Earth would be visible to anyone looking up at the night sky.[106]
Other catastrophes


The Pleiades, a star cluster whose supposed influence is sometimes tied to the 2012 phenomenon
Other speculations regarding doomsday in 2012 have included predictions by the Web Bot project, a computer program that purports to predict the future using Internet chatter. However, commentators have rejected the programmers' claims to have successfully predicted natural disasters, which web chatter could never predict, as opposed to human-caused disasters like stock market crashes.[108]
Also, the 2012 date has been loosely tied to the long-running concept of the Photon Belt, which predicts a form of interaction between Earth and Alcyone, the largest star of the Pleiades cluster.[109] Critics have argued that photons cannot form belts, that the Pleiades, located more than 400 light years away, could have no effect on Earth, and that the Solar System, rather than getting closer to the Pleiades, is in fact moving farther away from them.[110]
Some media outlets have tied the fact that the red supergiant star Betelgeuse will undergo a supernova at some point in the future to the 2012 phenomenon. However, while Betelgeuse is certainly in the final stages of its life, and will die as a supernova, there is no way to predict the timing of the event to within 100,000 years.[111] To be a threat to Earth, a supernova would need to be as close as 25 light years to the Solar System. Betelgeuse is roughly 600 light years away, and so its supernova will not affect Earth.[112]
Another claim involves alien invasion. In December 2010, an article, first published in examiner.com and later referenced in the English-language edition of Pravda[113] claimed, citing a Second Digitized Sky Survey photograph as evidence, that SETI had detected three large spacecraft due to arrive at Earth in 2012.[114] Astronomer and debunker Phil Plait noted that by using the small-angle formula, one could determine that if the object in the photo was as large as claimed, it would have had to be closer to Earth than the Moon, which would mean it would already have arrived.[114] In January 2011, Seth Shostak, chief astronomer of SETI, issued a press release debunking the claims.[113]
Cultural influence

The phenomenon has produced hundreds of books, as well as hundreds of thousands of websites.[83] "Ask an Astrobiologist", a NASA public outreach website, has received over 5000 questions from the public on the subject since 2007,[109] some asking whether they should kill themselves, their children or their pets.[83] Many contemporary fictional references to the year 2012 refer to December 21 as the day of a cataclysmic event, including the bestselling book of 2009,[115] Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol.
The 2009 disaster film 2012 was inspired by the phenomenon, and advance promotion prior to its release included a stealth marketing campaign in which TV spots and websites from the fictional "Institute for Human Continuity" called on people to prepare for the end of the world. As these promotions did not mention the film itself, many viewers believed them to be real and contacted astronomers in panic.[116][117] Although the campaign was heavily criticized,[83] the film became one of the most successful of its year, grossing nearly $770 million worldwide.[118]
Lars von Trier's 2011 film Melancholia features a plot in which a planet emerges from behind the Sun onto a collision course with Earth.[119] Announcing his company's purchase of the film, the head of Magnolia Pictures said in a press release, "As the 2012 apocalypse is upon us, it is time to prepare for a cinematic last supper."[120]
The phenomenon has also inspired several pop music hits. As early as 1997, "A Certain Shade of Green" by Incubus referred to the mystical belief that a shift in perception would arrive that year ("Are you gonna stand around till 2012 A.D.? / What are you waiting for, a certain shade of green?"). More recent hits include "2012 (It Ain't the End)" (2010) performed by Jay Sean and "Till the World Ends" (2011) performed by Britney Spears.
In 2011, the Mexico tourism board stated its intentions to use the year 2012, without its apocalyptic connotations, as a means to revive Mexico's tourism industry, which had suffered as the country gained a reputation for drug wars and kidnapping. The initiative hopes to draw on the mystical appeal of the Mayan ruins.[121] On December 21, 2011, the Mayan town of Tapachula in Chiapas activated an eight-foot digital clock counting down the days until b'ak'tun 13, while in Izapa, a nearby archaeological site, Mayan priests burned incense and prayed.[122]

jf

may pasok daaaaaaaaaaaw sa sabado

hello

Historical development

[edit]Origins
The pre-Socratics were among the first recorded speculators about the underlying nature of the visible world. Thales (c. 624 BC–c. 546 BC) regarded water as the fundamental material of the world. Anaximander (c. 610 BC–c. 546 BC) posited that the basic material was wholly characterless or limitless: the Infinite (apeiron). Anaximenes (flourished 585 BC, d. 528 BC) posited that the basic stuff was pneuma or air. Heraclitus (c. 535–c. 475 BC) seems to say the basic element is fire, though perhaps he means that all is change. Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) spoke of four elements of which everything was made: earth, water, air, and fire.[12] Meanwhile, Parmenides argued that change does not exist, and Democritus argued that everything is composed of minuscule, inert bodies of all shapes called atoms, a philosophy called atomism. All of these notions had deep philosophical problems.[13]
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) was the first to put the conception on a sound philosophical basis, which he did in his natural philosophy, especially in Physics book I.[14] He adopted as reasonable suppositions the four Empedoclean elements, but added a fifth, aether. Nevertheless these elements are not basic in Aristotle's mind. Rather they, like everything else in the visible world, are composed of the basic principles matter and form.
The word Aristotle uses for matter, ὑλη (hyle or hule), can be literally translated as wood or timber, that is, "raw material" for building.[15] Indeed, Aristotle's conception of matter is intrinsically linked to something being made or composed. In other words, in contrast to the early modern conception of matter as simply occupying space, matter for Aristotle is definitionally linked to process or change: matter is what underlies a change of substance.
For example, a horse eats grass: the horse changes the grass into itself; the grass as such does not persist in the horse, but some aspect of it—its matter—does. The matter is not specifically described (e.g., as atoms), but consists of whatever persists in the change of substance from grass to horse. Matter in this understanding does not exist independently (i.e., as a substance), but exists interdependently (i.e., as a "principle") with form and only insofar as it underlies change. It can be helpful to conceive of the relationship of matter and form as very similar to that between parts and whole. For Aristotle, matter as such can only receive actuality from form; it has no activity or actuality in itself, similar to the way that parts as such only have their existence in a whole (otherwise they would be independent wholes).
[edit]Early modernity
René Descartes (1596–1650) originated the modern conception of matter. He was primarily a geometer. Instead of, like Aristotle, deducing the existence of matter from the physical reality of change, Descartes arbitrarily postulated matter to be an abstract, mathematical substance that occupies space:
So, extension in length, breadth, and depth, constitutes the nature of bodily substance; and thought constitutes the nature of thinking substance. And everything else which can be attributed to body presupposes extension, and is only a mode of that which is extended

— René Descartes, Principles of Philosophy[16]

For Descartes, matter has only the property of extension, so its only activity aside from locomotion is to exclude other bodies[17]: this is the mechanical philosophy. Descartes makes an absolute distinction between mind, which he defines as unextended, thinking substance, and matter, which he defines as unthinking, extended substance.[18] They are independent things. In contrast, Aristotle defines matter and the formal/forming principle as complementary principles which together compose one independent thing (substance). In short, Aristotle defines matter (roughly speaking) as what things are actually made of (with a potential independent existence), but Descartes elevates matter to an actual independent thing in itself.
The continuity and difference between Descartes' and Aristotle's conceptions is noteworthy. In both conceptions, matter is passive or inert. In the respective conceptions matter has different relationships to intelligence. For Aristotle, matter and intelligence (form) exist together in an interdependent relationship, whereas for Descartes, matter and intelligence (mind) are definitionally opposed, independent substances.[19]
Descartes' justification for restricting the inherent qualities of matter to extension is its permanence, but his real criterion is not permanence (which equally applied to color and resistance), but his desire to use geometry to explain all material properties.[20] Like Descartes, Hobbes, Boyle, and Locke argued that the inherent propeties of bodies were limited to extension, and that so-called secondary qualities, like color, were only products of human perception.[21]
Isaac Newton (1643–1727) inherited Descartes' mechanical conception of matter. In the third of his "Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy," Newton lists the universal qualities of matter as "extension, hardness, impenetrability, mobility, and inertia."[22] Similarly in Optics he conjectures that God created matter as "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles", which were "even so very hard as never to wear or break in pieces."[23] The "primary" properties of matter were amenable to mathematical description, unlike "secondary" qualities such as color or taste. Like Descartes, Newton rejected the essential nature of secondary qualities.[24]
Newton developed Descartes' notion of matter by restoring to matter intrinsic properties in addition to extension (at least on a limited basis), such as mass. Newton's use of gravitational force, which worked "at a distance," effectively repudiated Descartes' mechanics, in which interactions happened exclusively by contact.[25]
Though Newton's gravity would seem to be a power of bodies, Newton himself did not admit it to be an essential property of matter. Carrying the logic forward more consistently, Joseph Priestly argued that corporeal properties transcend contact mechanics: chemical properties require the capacity for attraction.[25] He argued matter has other inherent powers besides the so-called primary qualities of Descartes, et al.[26]
Since Priestly's time, there has been a massive expansion in knowledge of the constituents of the material world (viz., molecules, atoms, subatomic particles), but there has been no further development in the definition of matter. Rather the question has been set aside. Noam Chomsky summarizes the situation that has prevailed since that time:
What is the concept of body that finally emerged?[...] The answer is that there is no clear and definite conception of body.[...] Rather, the material world is whatever we discover it to be, with whatever properties it must be assumed to have for the purposes of explanatory theory. Any intelligible theory that offers genuine explanations and that can be assimilated to the core notions of physics becomes part of the theory of the material world, part of our account of body. If we have such a theory in some domain, we seek to assimilate it to the core notions of physics, perhaps modifying these notions as we carry out this enterprise.

— Noam Chomsky, 'Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua lectures, p. 144[25]

So matter is whatever physics studies and the object of study of physics is matter: there is no independent general definition of matter, apart from its fitting into the methodology of measurement and controlled experimentation. In sum, the boundaries between what constitutes matter and everything else remains as vague as the demarcation problem of delimiting science from everything else.[27]
[edit]Late nineteenth and early twentieth century
In the 19th century, following the development of the periodic table, and of atomic theory, atoms were seen as being the fundamental constituents of matter; atoms formed molecules and compounds.[28]
The common definition in terms of occupying space and having mass is in contrast with most physical and chemical definitions of matter, which rely instead upon its structure and upon attributes not necessarily related to volume and mass. At the turn of the nineteenth century, the knowledge of matter began a rapid evolution.
Aspects of the Newtonian view still held sway. James Clerk Maxwell discussed matter in his work Matter and Motion.[29] He carefully separates "matter" from space and time, and defines it in terms of the object referred to in Newton's first law of motion.
However, the Newtonian picture was not the whole story. In the 19th century, the term "matter" was actively discussed by a host of scientists and philosophers, and a brief outline can be found in Levere.[30][further explanation needed] A textbook discussion from 1870 suggests matter is what is made up of atoms:[31]
Three divisions of matter are recognized in science: masses, molecules and atoms.
A Mass of matter is any portion of matter appreciable by the senses.
A Molecule is the smallest particle of matter into which a body can be divided without losing its identity.
An Atom is a still smaller particle produced by division of a molecule.
Rather than simply having the attributes of mass and occupying space, matter was held to have chemical and electrical properties. The famous physicist J. J. Thomson wrote about the "constitution of matter" and was concerned with the possible connection between matter and electrical charge.[32]
[edit]Later developments
There is an entire literature concerning the "structure of matter", ranging from the "electrical structure" in the early 20th century,[33] to the more recent "quark structure of matter", introduced today with the remark: Understanding the quark structure of matter has been one of the most important advances in contemporary physics.[34][further explanation needed] In this connection, physicists speak of matter fields, and speak of particles as "quantum excitations of a mode of the matter field".[8][9] And here is a quote from de Sabbata and Gasperini: "With the word "matter" we denote, in this context, the sources of the interactions, that is spinor fields (like quarks and leptons), which are believed to be the fundamental components of matter, or scalar fields, like the Higgs particles, which are used to introduced mass in a gauge theory (and which, however, could be composed of more fundamental fermion fields)."[35][further explanation needed]
The modern conception of matter has been refined many times in history, in light of the improvement in knowledge of just what the basic building blocks are, and in how they interact.
In the late 19th century with the discovery of the electron, and in the early 20th century, with the discovery of the atomic nucleus, and the birth of particle physics, matter was seen as made up of electrons, protons and neutrons interacting to form atoms. Today, we know that even protons and neutrons are not indivisible, they can be divided into quarks, while electrons are part of a particle family called leptons. Both quarks and leptons are elementary particles, and are currently seen as being the fundamental constituents of matter.[36]
These quarks and leptons interact through four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, weak interactions, and strong interactions. The Standard Model of particle physics is currently the best explanation for all of physics, but despite decades of efforts, gravity cannot yet be accounted for at the quantum-level; it is only described by classical physics (see quantum gravity and graviton).[37] Interactions between quarks and leptons are the result of an exchange of force-carrying particles (such as photons) between quarks and leptons.[38] The force-carrying particles are not themselves building blocks. As one consequence, mass and energy (which cannot be created or destroyed) cannot always be related to matter (which can be created out of non-matter particles such as photons, or even out of pure energy, such as kinetic energy). Force carriers are usually not considered matter: the carriers of the electric force (photons) possess energy (see Planck relation) and the carriers of the weak force (W and Z bosons) are massive, but neither are considered matter either.[39] However, while these particles are not considered matter, they do contribute to the total mass of atoms, subatomic particles, and all systems which contain them.[40][41]
[edit]Summary
The term "matter" is used throughout physics in a bewildering variety of contexts: for example, one refers to "condensed matter physics",[42] "elementary matter",[43] "partonic" matter, "dark" matter, "anti"-matter, "strange" matter, and "nuclear" matter. In discussions of matter and antimatter, normal matter has been referred to by Alfvén as koinomatter.[44] It is fair to say that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier.
[edit]Definitions

[edit]Common definition


The DNA molecule is an example of matter under the "atoms and molecules" definition.
The common definition of matter is anything that has both mass and volume (occupies space).[45][46] For example, a car would be said to be made of matter, as it occupies space, and has mass.
The observation that matter occupies space goes back to antiquity. However, an explanation for why matter occupies space is recent, and is argued to be a result of the Pauli exclusion principle.[47][48] Two particular examples where the exclusion principle clearly relates matter to the occupation of space are white dwarf stars and neutron stars, discussed further below.
[edit]Relativity
In the context of relativity, mass is not an additive quantity.[1] Thus, in relativity usually a more general view is taken that it is not mass, but the energy–momentum tensor that quantifies the amount of matter. Matter therefore is anything that contributes to the energy–momentum of a system, that is, anything that is not purely gravity.[49][50] This view is commonly held in fields that deal with general relativity such as cosmology.
[edit]Atoms and molecules definition
A definition of "matter" that is based upon its physical and chemical structure is: matter is made up of atoms and molecules.[51] As an example, deoxyribonucleic acid molecules (DNA) are matter under this definition because they are made of atoms. This definition can be extended to include charged atoms and molecules, so as to include plasmas (gases of ions) and electrolytes (ionic solutions), which are not obviously included in the atoms and molecules definition. Alternatively, one can adopt the protons, neutrons and electrons definition.
[edit]Protons, neutrons and electrons definition
A definition of "matter" more fine-scale than the atoms and molecules definition is: matter is made up of what atoms and molecules are made of, meaning anything made of positively charged protons, neutral neutrons, and negatively charged electrons.[52] This definition goes beyond atoms and molecules, however, to include substances made from these building blocks that are not simply atoms or molecules, for example white dwarf matter — typically, carbon and oxygen nuclei in a sea of degenerate electrons. At a microscopic level, the constituent "particles" of matter such as protons, neutrons and electrons obey the laws of quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality. At an even deeper level, protons and neutrons are made up of quarks and the force fields (gluons) that bind them together (see Quarks and leptons definition below).
[edit]Quarks and leptons definition


Under the "quarks and leptons" definition, the elementary and composite particles made of the quarks (in purple) and leptons (in green) would be "matter"; while the gauge bosons (in red) would not be "matter". However, interaction energy inherent to composite particles (for example, gluons involved in neutrons and protons) contribute to the mass of ordinary matter.
As may be seen from the above discussion, many early definitions of what can be called ordinary matter were based upon its structure or "building blocks". On the scale of elementary particles, a definition that follows this tradition can be stated as: ordinary matter is everything that is composed of elementary fermions, namely quarks and leptons.[53][54] The connection between these formulations follows.
Leptons (the most famous being the electron), and quarks (of which baryons, such as protons and neutrons, are made) combine to form atoms, which in turn form molecules. Because atoms and molecules are said to be matter, it is natural to phrase the definition as: ordinary matter is anything that is made of the same things that atoms and molecules are made of. (However, notice that one also can make from these building blocks matter that is not atoms or molecules.) Then, because electrons are leptons, and protons and neutrons are made of quarks, this definition in turn leads to the definition of matter as being "quarks and leptons", which are the two types of elementary fermions. Carithers and Grannis state: Ordinary matter is composed entirely of first-generation particles, namely the [up] and [down] quarks, plus the electron and its neutrino.[55] (Higher generations particles quickly decay into first-generation particles, and thus are not commonly encountered.[56])
This definition of ordinary matter is more subtle than it first appears. All the particles that make up ordinary matter (leptons and quarks) are elementary fermions, while all the force carriers are elementary bosons.[57] The W and Z bosons that mediate the weak force are not made of quarks or leptons, and so are not ordinary matter, even if they have mass.[58] In other words, mass is not something that is exclusive to ordinary matter.
The quark–lepton definition of ordinary matter, however, identifies not only the elementary building blocks of matter, but also includes composites made from the constituents (atoms and molecules, for example). Such composites contain an interaction energy that holds the constituents together, and may constitute the bulk of the mass of the composite. As an example, to a great extent, the mass of an atom is simply the sum of the masses of its constituent protons, neutrons and electrons. However, digging deeper, the protons and neutrons are made up of quarks bound together by gluon fields (see dynamics of quantum chromodynamics) and these gluons fields contribute significantly to the mass of hadrons.[59] In other words, most of what composes the "mass" of ordinary matter is due to the binding energy of quarks within protons and neutrons.[60] For example, the sum of the mass of the three quarks in a nucleon is approximately 12.5 MeV/c2, which is low compared to the mass of a nucleon (approximately 938 MeV/c2).[56][61] The bottom line is that most of the mass of everyday objects comes from the interaction energy of its elementary components.
[edit]Smaller building blocks?
The Standard Model groups matter particles into three generations, where each generation consists of two quarks and two leptons. The first generation is the up and down quarks, the electron and the electron neutrino; the second includes the charm and strange quarks, the muon and the muon neutrino; the third generation consists of the top and bottom quarks and the tau and tau neutrino.[62] The most natural explanation for this would be that quarks and leptons of higher generations are excited states of the first generations. If this turns out to be the case, it would imply that quarks and leptons are composite particles, rather than elementary particles.[63]
[edit]Structure

In particle physics, fermions are particles which obey Fermi–Dirac statistics. Fermions can be elementary, like the electron, or composite, like the proton and the neutron. In the Standard Model there are two types of elementary fermions: quarks and leptons, which are discussed next.
[edit]Quarks
Main article: Quark
Quarks are a particles of spin-1⁄2, implying that they are fermions. They carry an electric charge of −1⁄3 e (down-type quarks) or +2⁄3 e (up-type quarks). For comparison, an electron has a charge of −1 e. They also carry colour charge, which is the equivalent of the electric charge for the strong interaction. Quarks also undergo radioactive decay, meaning that they are subject to the weak interaction. Quarks are massive particles, and therefore are also subject to gravity.
Quark properties[64]
name symbol spin electric charge
(e) mass
(MeV/c2) mass comparable to antiparticle antiparticle
symbol
up-type quarks
up u 1⁄2 +2⁄3 1.5 to 3.3 ~ 5 electrons antiup u
charm c 1⁄2 +2⁄3 1160 to 1340 ~ 1 proton anticharm c
top t 1⁄2 +2⁄3 169,100 to 173,300 ~ 180 protons or
~ 1 tungsten atom antitop t
down-type quarks
down d 1⁄2 −1⁄3 3.5 to 6.0 ~ 10 electrons antidown d
strange s 1⁄2 −1⁄3 70 to 130 ~ 200 electrons antistrange s
bottom b 1⁄2 −1⁄3 4130 to 4370 ~ 5 protons antibottom b


Quark structure of a proton: 2 up quarks and 1 down quark.
[edit]Baryonic matter
Main article: Baryon
Baryons are strongly interacting fermions, and so are subject to Fermi-Dirac statistics. Amongst the baryons are the protons and neutrons, which occur in atomic nuclei, but many other unstable baryons exist as well. The term baryon is usually used to refer to triquarks — particles made of three quarks. "Exotic" baryons made of four quarks and one antiquark are known as the pentaquarks, but their existence is not generally accepted.
Baryonic matter is the part of the universe that is made of baryons (including all atoms). This part of the universe does not include dark energy, dark matter, black holes or various forms of degenerate matter, such as compose white dwarf stars and neutron stars. Microwave light seen by Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), suggests that only about 4.6% of that part of the universe within range of the best telescopes (that is, matter that may be visible because light could reach us from it), is made of baryionic matter. About 23% is dark matter, and about 72% is dark energy.[65]


A comparison between the white dwarf IK Pegasi B (center), its A-class companion IK Pegasi A (left) and the Sun (right). This white dwarf has a surface temperature of 35,500 K.
[edit]Degenerate matter
Main article: Degenerate matter
In physics, degenerate matter refers to the ground state of a gas of fermions at a temperature near absolute zero.[66] The Pauli exclusion principle requires that only two fermions can occupy a quantum state, one spin-up and the other spin-down. Hence, at zero temperature, the fermions fill up sufficient levels to accommodate all the available fermions, and for the case of many fermions the maximum kinetic energy called the Fermi energy and the pressure of the gas becomes very large and dependent upon the number of fermions rather than the temperature, unlike normal states of matter.
Degenerate matter is thought to occur during the evolution of heavy stars.[67] The demonstration by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar that white dwarf stars have a maximum allowed mass because of the exclusion principle caused a revolution in the theory of star evolution.[68]
Degenerate matter includes the part of the universe that is made up of neutron stars and white dwarfs.
[edit]Strange matter
Main article: Strange matter
Strange matter is a particular form of quark matter, usually thought of as a 'liquid' of up, down, and strange quarks. It is to be contrasted with nuclear matter, which is a liquid of neutrons and protons (which themselves are built out of up and down quarks), and with non-strange quark matter, which is a quark liquid containing only up and down quarks. At high enough density, strange matter is expected to be color superconducting. Strange matter is hypothesized to occur in the core of neutron stars, or, more speculatively, as isolated droplets that may vary in size from femtometers (strangelets) to kilometers (quark stars).
[edit]Two meanings of the term "strange matter"
In particle physics and astrophysics, the term is used in two ways, one broader and the other more specific.
The broader meaning is just quark matter that contains three flavors of quarks: up, down, and strange. In this definition, there is a critical pressure and an associated critical density, and when nuclear matter (made of protons and neutrons) is compressed beyond this density, the protons and neutrons dissociate into quarks, yielding quark matter (probably strange matter).
The narrower meaning is quark matter that is more stable than nuclear matter. The idea that this could happen is the "strange matter hypothesis" of Bodmer [69] and Witten.[70] In this definition, the critical pressure is zero: the true ground state of matter is always quark matter. The nuclei that we see in the matter around us, which are droplets of nuclear matter, are actually metastable, and given enough time (or the right external stimulus) would decay into droplets of strange matter, i.e. strangelets.
[edit]Leptons
Main article: Lepton
Leptons are particles of spin-1⁄2, meaning that they are fermions. They carry an electric charge of −1 e (charged leptons) or 0 e (neutrinos). Unlike quarks, leptons do not carry colour charge, meaning that they do not experience the strong interaction. Leptons also undergo radioactive decay, meaning that they are subject to the weak interaction. Leptons are massive particles, therefore are subject to gravity.
Lepton properties
name symbol spin electric charge
(e) mass
(MeV/c2) mass comparable to antiparticle antiparticle
symbol
charged leptons[71]
electron e−
1⁄2 −1 0.5110 1 electron antielectron e+
muon μ−
1⁄2 −1 105.7 ~ 200 electrons antimuon μ+
tau τ−
1⁄2 −1 1,777 ~ 2 protons antitau τ+
neutrinos[72]
electron neutrino ν
e 1⁄2 0 < 0.000460 < 1⁄1000 electron electron antineutrino ν
e
muon neutrino ν
μ 1⁄2 0 < 0.19 < 1⁄2 electron muon antineutrino ν
μ
tau neutrino ν
τ 1⁄2 0 < 18.2 < 40 electrons tau antineutrino ν
τ
[edit]Phases

Main article: Phase (matter)
See also: Phase diagram and State of matter


Phase diagram for a typical substance at a fixed volume. Vertical axis is Pressure, horizontal axis is Temperature. The green line marks the freezing point (above the green line is solid, below it is liquid) and the blue line the boiling point (above it is liquid and below it is gas). So, for example, at higher T, a higher P is necessary to maintain the substance in liquid phase. At the triple point the three phases; liquid, gas and solid; can coexist. Above the critical point there is no detectable difference between the phases. The dotted line shows the anomalous behavior of water: ice melts at constant temperature with increasing pressure.[73]
In bulk, matter can exist in several different forms, or states of aggregation, known as phases,[74] depending on ambient pressure, temperature and volume.[75] A phase is a form of matter that has a relatively uniform chemical composition and physical properties (such as density, specific heat, refractive index, and so forth). These phases include the three familiar ones (solids, liquids, and gases), as well as more exotic states of matter ( such as plasmas, superfluids, supersolids, Bose–Einstein condensates, ...). A fluid may be a liquid, gas or plasma. There are also paramagnetic and ferromagnetic phases of magnetic materials. As conditions change, matter may change from one phase into another. These phenomena are called phase transitions, and are studied in the field of thermodynamics. In nanomaterials, the vastly increased ratio of surface area to volume results in matter that can exhibit properties entirely different from those of bulk material, and not well described by any bulk phase (see nanomaterials for more details).
Phases are sometimes called states of matter, but this term can lead to confusion with thermodynamic states. For example, two gases maintained at different pressures are in different thermodynamic states (different pressures), but in the same phase (both are gases).
[edit]Antimatter

Main article: Antimatter
Unsolved problems in physics
Baryon asymmetry. Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?
In particle physics and quantum chemistry, antimatter is matter that is composed of the antiparticles of those that constitute ordinary matter. If a particle and its antiparticle come into contact with each other, the two annihilate; that is, they may both be converted into other particles with equal energy in accordance with Einstein's equation E = mc2. These new particles may be high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs. The resulting particles are endowed with an amount of kinetic energy equal to the difference between the rest mass of the products of the annihilation and the rest mass of the original particle-antiparticle pair, which is often quite large.
Antimatter is not found naturally on Earth, except very briefly and in vanishingly small quantities (as the result of radioactive decay or cosmic rays). This is because antimatter which came to exist on Earth outside the confines of a suitable physics laboratory would almost instantly meet the ordinary matter that Earth is made of, and be annihilated. Antiparticles and some stable antimatter (such as antihydrogen) can be made in tiny amounts, but not in enough quantity to do more than test a few of its theoretical properties.
There is considerable speculation both in science and science fiction as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely matter, and whether other places are almost entirely antimatter instead. In the early universe, it is thought that matter and antimatter were equally represented, and the disappearance of antimatter requires an asymmetry in physical laws called the charge parity (or CP symmetry) violation. CP symmetry violation can be obtained from the Standard Model,[76] but at this time the apparent asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. Possible processes by which it came about are explored in more detail under baryogenesis.
[edit]Other types of matter



Pie chart showing the fractions of energy in the universe contributed by different sources. Ordinary matter is divided into luminous matter (the stars and luminous gases and 0.005% radiation) and nonluminous matter (intergalactic gas and about 0.1% neutrinos and 0.04% supermassive black holes). Ordinary matter is uncommon. Modeled after Ostriker and Steinhardt.[77] For more information, see NASA.
Ordinary matter, in the quarks and leptons definition, constitutes about 4% of the energy of the observable universe. The remaining energy is theorized to be due to exotic forms, of which 23% is dark matter[78][79] and 73% is dark energy.[80][81]


Galaxy rotation curve for the Milky Way. Vertical axis is speed of rotation about the galactic center. Horizontal axis is distance from the galactic center. The sun is marked with a yellow ball. The observed curve of speed of rotation is blue. The predicted curve based upon stellar mass and gas in the Milky Way is red. The difference is due to dark matter or perhaps a modification of the law of gravity.[82][83][84] Scatter in observations is indicated roughly by gray bars.
[edit]Dark matter
Main articles: Dark matter, Lambda-CDM model, and WIMPs
See also: Galaxy formation and evolution and Dark matter halo
In astrophysics and cosmology, dark matter is matter of unknown composition that does not emit or reflect enough electromagnetic radiation to be observed directly, but whose presence can be inferred from gravitational effects on visible matter.[11][85] Observational evidence of the early universe and the big bang theory require that this matter have energy and mass, but is not composed of either elementary fermions (as above) OR gauge bosons. The commonly accepted view is that most of the dark-matter is non-baryonic in nature.[11] As such, it is composed of particles as yet unobserved in the laboratory. Perhaps they are supersymmetric particles,[86] which are not Standard Model particles, but relics formed at very high energies in the early phase of the universe and still floating about.[11]
[edit]Dark energy
Main article: Dark energy
See also: Big bang#Dark energy
In cosmology, dark energy is the name given to the antigravitating influence that is accelerating the rate of expansion of the universe. It is known not to be composed of known particles like protons, neutrons or electrons, nor of the particles of dark matter, because these all gravitate.[87][88]
Fully 70% of the matter density in the universe appears to be in the form of dark energy. Twenty-six percent is dark matter. Only 4% is ordinary matter. So less than 1 part in 20 is made out of matter we have observed experimentally or described in the standard model of particle physics. Of the other 96%, apart from the properties just mentioned, we know absolutely nothing.

— Lee Smolin: The Trouble with Physics, p. 16

[edit]Exotic matter
Main article: Exotic matter
Exotic matter is a hypothetical concept of particle physics. It covers any material which violates one or more classical conditions or is not made of known baryonic particles. Such materials would possess qualities like negative mass or being repelled rather than attracted by gravity.
[edit]See also

Antimatter
Ambiplasma
Antihydrogen
Antiparticle
Particle accelerator
Cosmology
Cosmological constant
Friedmann equations
Physical ontology
Dark matter
Axion
Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model
Neutralino
Nonbaryonic dark matter
Scalar field dark matter
Philosophy
Atomism
Materialism
Physicalism
Other
Mass–energy equivalence
Mattergy
Periodic Systems of Small Molecules
Pattern formation

ngayun nalang ulit naka online :)

ang hina ng net

matagal ko na d nabubuksan itong blog

hi

hi

sportfest

grabe nangitim ako

computers

A computer is a programmable machine designed to sequentially and automatically carry out a sequence of arithmetic or logical operations. The particular sequence of operations can be changed readily, allowing the computer to solve more than one kind of problem.
Conventionally a computer consists of some form of memory for data storage, at least one element that carries out arithmetic and logic operations, and a sequencing and control element that can change the order of operations based on the information that is stored. Peripheral devices allow information to be entered from an external source, and allow the results of operations to be sent out.
A computer's processing unit executes series of instructions that make it read, manipulate and then store data. Conditional instructions change the sequence of instructions as a function of the current state of the machine or its environment.
The first electronic computers were developed in the mid-20th century (1940–1945). Originally, they were the size of a large room, consuming as much power as several hundred modern personal computers (PCs).[1]
Modern computers based on integrated circuits are millions to billions of times more capable than the early machines, and occupy a fraction of the space.[2] Simple computers are small enough to fit into mobile devices, and mobile computers can be powered by small batteries. Personal computers in their various forms are icons of the Information Age and are what most people think of as "computers". However, the embedded computers found in many devices from mp3 players to fighter aircraft and from toys to industrial robots are the most numerous.

hi

parang ewan ung nagkaka ----- sa akin dyos ko po malabo na yata ang mata

diamond ict glenn vincent ong open offfice

open office write - ms word
open office excel- ms calc
open office impress- ms powerpoint
open office draw- ms paint

hay naku kailangan ng title sa ip

ano ba yan sana nag post ako ng sunday sayang