Messages

676

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 03:06:19 PM »

It might have been a different timespan. I don't know exactly how long, but his age was offset very slightly because of it.

The most that could've happened is his aging slowed imperceptibly.

677

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter (currently time dilation :l )

« on: August 03, 2011, 03:04:19 PM »

You cannot go faster than the speed of light. It is not possible. It would take an infinite amount of energy.

678

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:49:48 PM »

Didn't it also have something to do with a massive amount of heat?

Well the early universe was incredibly hot.

679

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:48:23 PM »

A theory I heard. I just thought it was a rather interesting concept.

Well the big bang wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion of space.

680

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:47:11 PM »

Anti-matter is matter but the subatomic particles have reversed charges. Electrons would be positive, protons would be negative.

Combining matter and anti-matter would create a massive explosion giving off tons of energy, this is where the big bang theory apparently comes from, that anti-matter and matter levels equaled out and went kablowey

Um no the big bang isn't supposed to be caused by antimatter

Things can go faster than the speed of light. They probably don't go back in time.

No, things literally can't go faster than the speed of light.

The only viable form of time travel is wormholes.

681

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:26:29 PM »

I'm interested.

682

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:21:24 PM »

Speed is relative, so yes.

683

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 02:15:58 PM »

c is the speed of light in a vacuum

684

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:57:27 PM »

No, tingalz is right, you can't have antienergy because of the way mass-energy equivalance actually works.

685

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:50:18 PM »

>>Wizzeh is posting in the topic

This will not end well

I'm here to discuss science, not argue.

I did miss it.

But I don't see how it's hard to have a diagram that shows. Positron + Electron = 0 + Energy. This is how the electron and positron are turned into energy.

Well I don't really know how it works and I'm not sure that anyone does but basically every particle has intrinsic energy and since energy can't be created or destroyed when the particle is destroyed it has to release energy.


EDIT: Having said that I realize, wouldn't the energies of the two particles nullify one another?

686

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:47:16 PM »

It'd be really nice if they just had a diagram with pictures of what things are and what they're made of.

EDIT: Anyway, that's not what modern science is like. Often it starts with an inference but that's valid as an observation, you can mathematically "test" a lot of this and physics (which I assume you're referring to) is working towards testing it experimentally, and you can test the bullstuff rules too, if any of them are proven false you've got to revise. It's still science.

In case you missed it. Obviously it'd be nice if that were the case but a lot of modern physics is too complicated to fit on a diagram.

687

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:44:42 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

Have fun living in a land of fantasy.
The "closed system" involved is the entire universe. Conservation of mass is not violated because mass = energy.


I have no problem with the modern theories, I just get pissed off when they make things up because they can't currently find an explanation for things. "Dog is white" > "Dog must be ghost" > "Everything we once knew is forever changed"

You still have to test it lol, if you don't do that you're not doing science.

688

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:39:43 PM »

Modern science is a bunch of crap.

Science method is: Observe, hypothesis, test, hypothesis, test, hypothesis... until you get a theory

Modern science is: No observation, hypothesis, test (Oh wait, what you are hypothesizing about cannot be tested), find out that hypothesis is only valid if you make up 18 more bullstuff rules, make up 18 more bullstuff rules, theory

Have fun living in the dark ages.

EDIT: Anyway, that's not what modern science is like. Often it starts with an inference but that's valid as an observation, you can mathematically "test" a lot of this and physics (which I assume you're referring to) is working towards testing it experimentally, and you can test the bullstuff rules too, if any of them are proven false you've got to revise. It's still science.

It's not conservation of mass, it's conservation of energy. No energy is destroyed in that reaction.

689

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:33:08 PM »

It's about 45 kilotons of tnt.

690

Off Topic / Re: Science Discussion - Topic: Antimatter

« on: August 03, 2011, 01:22:27 PM »

I'm an idiot. Could you elaborate?

The energy of a particle is its mass times the speed of light squared. Since the particle is destroyed entirely, all that energy has to be released.