Moderator: Community Team
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
The1exile wrote:define "units".
aage wrote:Never trust CYOC or pancake.
The1exile wrote:define "units".
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:The1exile wrote:define "units".
I guess he's talking about atomic mass units.
The1exile wrote:MeDeFe wrote:The1exile wrote:define "units".
I guess he's talking about atomic mass units.
well, I would have thought so, but seeing as he isn't, who's the silly boy now eh?
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Nikolai wrote:Um... a googleplex would be 10^Google. Not a real number, albeit a cool one. I believe what you're looking for is a googolplex... being 10^10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000, which is a really cool number... although arguably also not real, since there aren't so many of anything at all, ever. To give you something to compare... the estimated number of subatomic particles in the universe is (I believe) 10^213. Oh, and if you had a googolplex units of chrome, regardless of unit size, I would suggesting finding some antimatter, fast, before the universe is destroyed.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?
Nikolai wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?
Science fiction nonsense! There's no reason to assume that antimatter and matter would react in an explosive manner, particularly given E=mc^2.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:Nikolai wrote:MeDeFe wrote:Wouldn't the resulting explosion of the chrome and the antimatter also destroy the universe?
Science fiction nonsense! There's no reason to assume that antimatter and matter would react in an explosive manner, particularly given E=mc^2.
That's exactly why there would be an explosion, a lot of matter goes missing and so an obscenely huge amount of energy is released. Explosion.
Nikolai wrote:No, the principle of mass-energy equivalence states that all mass has an associated energy. Derived from this is our understanding that matter converts to energy and vice versa. And the conservation laws of mass and energy state that if matter is decreased, energy must have been released. But if matter, rather than being converted to energy, were simply to cease to exist because it was united with antimatter, you have actually destroyed the matter, rather than converting it. We have no idea what would happen, since E=mc^2 doesn't contain any derivatives that would explain what happens when something meets its scientific antithesis, and seems to indicate that if matter is destroyed, energy is likewise destroyed... we just don't know if it's kinetic or potential energy. (That's right... antimatter/matter collision could produce black holes!) We just have it set in our heads that antimatter + matter = BOOM because antimatter engines sound cool on Star Trek, and you need an energy release for engines to work. (And, to be fair, antimatter weapons would be freaking ridiculous... shoot something, and it ceases to exist.)
Beyond that, there's no known scientific support to indicate that there would or would not be an explosion, since antimatter is entirely theoretical, has never been isolated, and no one has ever knowingly witnessed antimatter colliding with matter. Because science is intended to be based on experimentation, replication, and observation, any statements about what happens when antimatter meets matter are entirely speculation. (In much the same way that both the evolution and the intelligent design theories are entirely speculation, only more so, since we know the world started somehow, but we don't know that antimatter exists.)
jiminski wrote:Nikolai wrote:No, the principle of mass-energy equivalence states that all mass has an associated energy. Derived from this is our understanding that matter converts to energy and vice versa. And the conservation laws of mass and energy state that if matter is decreased, energy must have been released. But if matter, rather than being converted to energy, were simply to cease to exist because it was united with antimatter, you have actually destroyed the matter, rather than converting it. We have no idea what would happen, since E=mc^2 doesn't contain any derivatives that would explain what happens when something meets its scientific antithesis, and seems to indicate that if matter is destroyed, energy is likewise destroyed... we just don't know if it's kinetic or potential energy. (That's right... antimatter/matter collision could produce black holes!) We just have it set in our heads that antimatter + matter = BOOM because antimatter engines sound cool on Star Trek, and you need an energy release for engines to work. (And, to be fair, antimatter weapons would be freaking ridiculous... shoot something, and it ceases to exist.)
Beyond that, there's no known scientific support to indicate that there would or would not be an explosion, since antimatter is entirely theoretical, has never been isolated, and no one has ever knowingly witnessed antimatter colliding with matter. Because science is intended to be based on experimentation, replication, and observation, any statements about what happens when antimatter meets matter are entirely speculation. (In much the same way that both the evolution and the intelligent design theories are entirely speculation, only more so, since we know the world started somehow, but we don't know that antimatter exists.)
If something does not matter is it antimatter?
jiminski wrote:
If something does not matter is it antimatter?
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users