Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Quote
Originally posted by Russell Quintero: As for the ball, it doesn't give off much energy because when it stops it still retains its rest mass.
That is precisely the point. You CAN'T make it cease to retain its rest mass.
** From what I understand of blackholes, they convert a great deal of the matter falling into them into EM energy in their accretion disks, but much of it still falls within the event horizon, and then increases the mass of the blackhole, again not a perfect transformation.**
(url="http://"http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html")Read this webpage(/url) about evaporating black holes.
-Vaumnou
------------------ Did you know that 63.8% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot? "He's too late. SEE?!? THE CLIFFS OF INSANITY!!! Hurry up!"
Originally posted by Vaumnou: **
Read this webpage about evaporating black holes.
**
I don't see why the fact that through normal interactions you cannot change matter into pure energy this means that matter and energy cannot be the the same thing. Especially since you seem to have no problem with a blackhole converting mass into energy. If the blackhole were to do that, and mass!=energy, then there would be a violation of both the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. By setting mass=energy, then no such violation occurs, and we need only discover how much energy is given off per unit of mass, as is done in the most frequently cited equation of all time.
I will try to follow that link when it is not 10PM and I don't have TWO finals at 7AM the next day. Don't worry, I am one of those few people capable of being in multiple places at once.
------------------ "Damn, everybody wants something up their ass today! Yeah, I'm cool like that." - forge
Originally posted by Russell Quintero: **I don't see why the fact that through normal interactions you cannot change matter into pure energy this means that matter and energy cannot be the the same thing. Especially since you seem to have no problem with a blackhole converting mass into energy. If the blackhole were to do that, and mass!=energy, then there would be a violation of both the conservation of mass and the conservation of energy. By setting mass=energy, then no such violation occurs, and we need only discover how much energy is given off per unit of mass, as is done in the most frequently cited equation of all time.
I will try to follow that link when it is not 10PM and I don't have TWO finals at 7AM the next day. Don't worry, I am one of those few people capable of being in multiple places at once.**
Ok, I'll leave you to studying for your finals, but I just wanted to point out the following: I didn't say that matter and energy are entirely different, but that they are different forms of the same thing. There IS a difference between those points of view. Only a p-brane would say that matter and energy aren't even related ;).
Heehee, I love discussions of theoretical physics.
(This message has been edited by Vaumnou (edited 05-12-2003).)
Well, after reading most of that and understanding only some of it, I'm going to devulge my knowledge of antimatter.
An antimatter reaction is much more damaging than any other type in existance. Nucular bombs' explosions only turn something like 0.003% of the mass of the nucular reactant (usually plutonium(sp?)) into energy. Antimatter reactions turn 100% of the reactants mass (at least) turns into energy. You might get 200% if the antimatter releases energy when detonated. This makes antimatter explosions 33,333x more powerful than a nucular explosion of the same mass.
The decimal on the nuke might be off, but I'm sure you get the idea. A tennis ball sized antimatter bomb could quite possibly destroy a city. So that makes it very good for propulsion, assuming you can get the costs down and contain the stuff...
------------------ I am ME hear me roar! Meeoowwwww
Originally posted by Meaker VI: **Nucular... <snip>
The decimal on the nuke might be off, but I'm sure you get the idea. A tennis ball sized antimatter bomb could quite possibly destroy a city. So that makes it very good for propulsion, assuming you can get the costs down and contain the stuff...**
That's nuclear. And the problem with antimatter is getting the stuff in the first place.
------------------ Did you know that 63.8% of quoted statistics are made up on the spot? "He's too late. SEE?!? THE CLIFFS OF INSANITY!!! Hurry up!" "You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. .... Radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there is no cat." - Albert Einstein
Originally posted by Meaker VI: **Well, after reading most of that and understanding only some of it, I'm going to devulge my knowledge of antimatter.
A few misconceptions here. The antimatter has a certain mass, equal to the mass of the particles they correspond to. When they come in contact with their particle counterparts, they annihilate converting the mass of both the particle and antiparticle into energy. This is important, and antiproton will not annihilate with an neutron, only with a proton. Antimatter makes a very good energy source for propulsion, but not for powering cities since it doesn't ocur naturally due to the over abundance of particles and therefore takes more energy to create than it can release, due to the symmetry I mentioned earlier.