Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-1-2004, 12:38 PM   #21
JustJono
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 283
Default

Aren't there heat sensors that detect black holes? Their density is supposed to be sup3rh0t.
__________________
Jonathan Cruz

http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp
JustJono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-1-2004, 07:02 PM   #22
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

Augh, now for my third try at this post. Hopefully this comp won't screw up.

@Jono: Read the link that Apple posted.

@Apple: Thanks for the link; it saved me much time on an explanation.

@Jam: Electron clouds do overlap slightly during covalent bonding, but for the most part you're right.

@Tank: Quantum physics says that particle/antiparticle creations and annihilations are occurring all the time, but on a level of subatomic particles and in a faster-than-is-conceivable time frame. I'm also pretty sure that there's a good deal of antimatter in the universe.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-1-2004, 09:55 PM   #23
Dronak
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Dronak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 601
Send a message via AIM to Dronak Send a message via Yahoo to Dronak
Default

About the shortest answer I can give from all my physics training is no, you cannot destroy matter, only change it from one form to another. Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is familiar to all, right? Well, that demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent; you can change matter to energy and vice versa. For example, the matter/anti-matter annihilation people have mentioned turns matter into energy. It doesn't actually destroy it. In common terms, maybe, the particles aren't there anymore, but not in physics terms because you just changed its form. As far as black holes go, remember that because nothing can escape the gravitational pull of one if you're close enough to it, we can't get information from beyond a certain point and therefore we can't know what happens beyond that point. Your guess as to what happens is about as good as mine; with no way to actually test the theories, it's not exactly science anymore.
__________________

Essentially retired now, but still ranked on the list of FFR's Top One Handers.
One-Hander Skill Tokens unlocked: The V2 Token, The Patience Token, X_X1MissX_X, AAA v5, T.H.E.G.A.M.E.T.O.K.E.N
Pseudo Skill Tokens unlocked: Numbers 21, 44, 33, 57, 26, 24, 47, 95
Dronak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-1-2004, 10:13 PM   #24
DDRISONLY4COOLPPLZ
FFR Player
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 16
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewpinthethird
Destroying matter isnt something that as that DDRISONLY4COOL people.

Take a pile of wood. You light it on fire and watch it burn until there is no longer any more wood to burn. Yes, the wood has been "destroyed" but all the molecules that made up the wood are still present....the ashes and smoke that was released into the air.

And then there is the Black Hole theory. Well, the theory is that a black hole is that a star has so much mass, that it acutally creates a bend it space (since space is not a vacuum, so to say, because it does contain matter). It creates such a strong gravity force, that anything near it is sucked into it...and nothing known to man can escape it (not even light). So, Matter is destroyed when it enters the void.
Matter is something that occupies space not outter space if that's what you're thinking , but if you think that my definition is wrong then look in the " Webster's 2 New College Dictionary " page 675 ok
DDRISONLY4COOLPPLZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-1-2004, 11:12 PM   #25
brutisgrr
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
Default

Oooooo... didn't think of that Jam.

And it only stands to reason that if matter is destroyed, it would make a BIG explosion. But what gets me is how we will ever find out if we are correct. I mean... if someone found out, then... well...
BOOM!!! Yeah... And trying to get two sub-atomic particles exactly the same in every way... it's damn near impossible.


But I would love to see that explosion.

And one last thing. What exactly happens to someone if it is destroyed, like not existing, not part of the universe destroyed? It's just mind-boggling to think of something being just gone instead of being something/somewhere else.
brutisgrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-1-2004, 11:32 PM   #26
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dronak
About the shortest answer I can give from all my physics training is no, you cannot destroy matter, only change it from one form to another. Einstein's famous E=mc^2 is familiar to all, right? Well, that demonstrates that matter and energy are equivalent; you can change matter to energy and vice versa. For example, the matter/anti-matter annihilation people have mentioned turns matter into energy. It doesn't actually destroy it. In common terms, maybe, the particles aren't there anymore, but not in physics terms because you just changed its form.
The "changing it from one form to another" that you're talking about is from the Law of Conservation of Matter. The changing detailed in the Law is from one form of matter to another form of matter, not from matter to energy. You are very right, matter and energy can be used interchangeably, but for the purposes of this argument, and practicality, they are two completely different things. Annihilation of matter in a particle/antiparticle collision starts with matter and ends without it. The Law of Conservation of Matter can't even apply because matter isn't being conserved. On top of that, as I said in an earlier post, the Law only conserves matter in ordinary chemical reactions. That phrase was added to the original Law because particle/antiparticle collisions obviously violated it.

@brutis: It's actually not too difficult to get two particles to have the exact same properties, according to Quantum Physics (I always insert this clause because quantum physics isn't accepted as truth, but I think I'll stop for the sake of succinctness [word?]). The whole premise of action over a distance is based on that fact. Recently scientists have used action over a distance to effectively "teleport" particles instantaneously (redundant?).

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 12:10 AM   #27
Jam930
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
Default

*edit

Better example.

If you have a cup of water, and freeze it, now you have ice. You don't have water anymore, but you have the ice! The water is not destroyed, just changed.
__________________
-Jamie
Jam930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 12:23 AM   #28
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam930
Exchanging a 5 dollar bill for some quarters does not destroy the 5 dollar bill. You don't have it anymore, but you have the equivalent.
And that's an illustration of conservation of matter.


What I was trying to do was discern between matter to matter conversions and matter to energy conversions; they are very different things.

You have a log. It's matter. You burn the log. It's the same amount of matter. Ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of matter applies.

You have a neutron and a neutrino. It's matter. You collide the two. There is no longer matter. NOT an ordinary chemical reaction, Law of Conservation of Matter does not apply.

Before the burning, you have matter. After the burning, you have matter.
Before the annihilation, you have matter. After the annihilation, you do not have matter.
Can you see the difference?

Y'all are trying to say conversions from matter to matter and conversions from matter to energy are the same things, and that laws that apply to one apply to the other. That's simply not true. In an annihilation, matter is destroyed. Energy is given off for some sort of universal balancing effect, but the matter is gone, destroyed.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 12:37 AM   #29
Jam930
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
Default

You are not destroying the matter. Look at my icecube example.

If it were destroyed, you would get nothing out of it. If you change it into energy, it has become that energy, it's not gone.


Water -> Ice.

Was the water destroyed? no.
__________________
-Jamie
Jam930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 02:11 AM   #30
suicidalmuskrat
FFR Player
 
suicidalmuskrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Muskegon
Posts: 739
Send a message via AIM to suicidalmuskrat Send a message via MSN to suicidalmuskrat Send a message via Yahoo to suicidalmuskrat
Default

are there proven examples of anti-matter? i guess according to theory that since there are blackholes (which 'suck' in 'everything), then there should also be whiteholes, which should randomly 'spit' out everything...mainly just subatomic particles and single atom things, but theoretically it could spit out washing machines and carpet...also, i thought there were exceptions to the 'conversation of matter' rules when it came nuclear reactions...taking 2 atoms and 'fusing' them together to make one...in a simplified explanation
__________________
I'll trade you this delicious doorstop for your crummy old danish.
Done, and done.
suicidalmuskrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 02:18 AM   #31
CypherToorima
Boss of all bosses
FFR Veteran
 
CypherToorima's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Phone Home!
Age: 32
Posts: 2,452
Send a message via AIM to CypherToorima
Default

White holes are purely theoritical. It's just scientists balancing equasions (Spelling is really bad right now...)
CypherToorima is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 02:33 AM   #32
suicidalmuskrat
FFR Player
 
suicidalmuskrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Muskegon
Posts: 739
Send a message via AIM to suicidalmuskrat Send a message via MSN to suicidalmuskrat Send a message via Yahoo to suicidalmuskrat
Default

that's why i said in theory
__________________
I'll trade you this delicious doorstop for your crummy old danish.
Done, and done.
suicidalmuskrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 12:23 PM   #33
Tank101
I V vi iii IV I IV V
FFR Simfile Author
 
Tank101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Tent
Age: 29
Posts: 2,082
Send a message via AIM to Tank101
Default

Okay I'm caught between Jam and Guido, I understand that through annialation(spelling?) you have matter before the process, and the matter is gone after the process, but you said energy takes its place, I think the main question now is whether or not energy is something that takes up space, and I do beleive it is, (but I can't seem to prove it with an example). If energy does take up space, then the energy would be the equivalant density of the matter thought to be destroyed thus proving E=mc^2.

I hope that made sense.
Tank101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 12:49 PM   #34
Jam930
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
Default

You're not caugh between me and guido.

You're caught between Einstine and Newton.

Einstine said energy and matter are interchangable.

Newton, I think, believed otherwise.



To Suicidal: I don't think there are white holes. Black holes aren't really holes, and they aren't really black, It's just dense matter too small to see.

Remember the properties of light... In order to "be" white, it would have to recieve all the wave lengths of the visible spectrum.
Like how a prism can split a white beam of light into a rainbow.
__________________
-Jamie
Jam930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 01:28 PM   #35
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

The rift between Jam and me is apparently in our definitions of destruction. For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction; I have no idea why thinking otherwise would be useful. There is matter, then there isn't matter. I like to call that destruction.

Jam, however thinks otherwise, and basically says an iron rod and a bunch of energy are the same things. I realize that certain areas of physics need to talk about matter and energy interchangeably, but I don't think that annihilating matter is the same as burning a log.

Newton had no concept of what Einstein came up with, so it's not like there was a debate and they chose opposite sides. It's like saying Aristotle disagreed with Copernicus.

Also, Jam, you see colors from emissions by objects. A white hole, by definition, emits everything, white light included. It wouldn't have to absorb any energy from outside sources to emit light. Regardless, there's no evidence of them, and I don't believe they exist either.

Suicidal, on that Law "exception" you're quite off. Matter is still conserved.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 01:51 PM   #36
Jam930
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,069
Default

Grrrrrrr.

So when water freezes and takes the form of ice... you say.


"Theres water... then there isn't water... Tadaaa!"

I understand your argument, no offense, but I don't think it's necessary to be ignorant of the fact that the matter only changed form.
__________________
-Jamie
Jam930 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 02:18 PM   #37
Dronak
FFR Veteran
FFR Veteran
 
Dronak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 601
Send a message via AIM to Dronak Send a message via Yahoo to Dronak
Default Q

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoHunter
For all purposes of physics and practicality, matter is destroyed in an annihilation reaction
Sorry to be so blunt, but that is absolutely incorrect. Matter is definitely *not* destroyed "for all purposes of physics" in matter/antimatter annihilation. If you believe that, then I don't think you really understand physics. The matter has changed form, the mass of the particles gets turned into energy. E=mc^2, mass and energy are equivalent. The annihilation turns particles of matter and anti-matter into some amount of energy. You don't get nothing from something so it's not destroyed. Only in a common sense type definition can you say that matter is destroyed -- now you see particles, now you don't, they must have been destroyed. And that's how you're thinking. But if you're discussing a phenomenon in physics you have to use the proper physics terms and definitions, not your common sense ones. If there's one thing we've learned in physics over the centuries, it's that when you really get down to it, common sense is wrong and does not properly explain how things work.

Jam930 is right. She's using the proper physics terms and definitions, as am I. If you stick to your common sense definitions, you're not going to understand what's really happening. And that's why it's useful not to think that way. Besides the fact that it's wrong, of course.
__________________

Essentially retired now, but still ranked on the list of FFR's Top One Handers.
One-Hander Skill Tokens unlocked: The V2 Token, The Patience Token, X_X1MissX_X, AAA v5, T.H.E.G.A.M.E.T.O.K.E.N
Pseudo Skill Tokens unlocked: Numbers 21, 44, 33, 57, 26, 24, 47, 95
Dronak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 03:48 PM   #38
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuidoHunter
Y'all are trying to say conversions from matter to matter and conversions from matter to energy are the same things, and that laws that apply to one apply to the other. That's simply not true. In an annihilation, matter is destroyed. Energy is given off for some sort of universal balancing effect, but the matter is gone, destroyed.
You CAN NOT liken matter to matter conversions to matter to energy conversions. You just can't, and that's why the ice to water argument isn't even relevant here. Different rules apply to them, ergo contextual definitions may apply differently to them, too.

The reason I said "For all purposes of physics and practicality..." was because nobody cares about the release of energy. When physicists discuss annihilative reactions, they understand that they are just that: annihilative, as in, what was there originally is destroyed after the reaction. Yes, matter is destroyed according to the common sense definition of destruction, hence the "and practicality" in my statement.

You're using proper physics terms and I'm not? That's just laughable.

As I read up on this subject, this debate may take a turn for the philosophical...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jam930
Grrrrrrr.
Jam, I share your sentiment. In a loving, yet frustrated, way, of course.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 08:08 PM   #39
brutisgrr
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 12
Default

WTF? white holes? did I miss something? Let's keep it to destroying only please. So it keeps the noise to a dull roar.

But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because
a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye.
b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up.
c) it only exists in theory so far anyway
brutisgrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-2-2004, 08:38 PM   #40
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brutisgrr
But as far as I've seen, we have not seen any true examples of anti-matter because
a) It would more than likely be invisible to the naked eye.
b) we'd all be royally screwed if one did come up.
c) it only exists in theory so far anyway
No, we can create it in laboratories.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution