|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:46 pm
Without the use of an array, what would be the fastest way to convert a lot of blank back to something else~?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:50 pm
DrasBrisingr The FLCL Guy DrasBrisingr The FLCL Guy DrasBrisingr The FLCL Guy no energy is being created nor destroied just recongfigured. So then...black hole? And you since you didn't answer my second question, I'm just going to copy and past it here. Is that great array, or whatever it is, the only thing that can create this "blank energy"? Because that wouldn't make any sense at all.I geuss it would be very simular to a black hole. Blank energy can be formed many ways Haha, "simular". You type like my AP Cal teacher speaks. Except she is so, so, so much ******** worse. But anyway, if blank energy can be formed many ways, why is this particular array so dangerous? its the easiest way to make alot of blank energy Out of curiosity, what are those other ways? Not step-by-step specific instructions, but just generally, what does it involve? Just so I can get a better understanding of blank energy itself. Well one way is to breakdown physical energy and force it to break down more phesical energy which would be even more like a blackhole. Another way is another array. And most the other ways are simular
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 7:58 pm
The FLCL Guy DrasBrisingr Out of curiosity, what are those other ways? Not step-by-step specific instructions, but just generally, what does it involve? Just so I can get a better understanding of blank energy itself. Well one way is to breakdown physical energy and force it to break down more phesical energy which would be even more like a blackhole. Another way is another array. And most the other ways are simular How would one go about breaking down physical energy? And what exactly do you mean by "physical energy"?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:02 pm
I'm breaking in again:
By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:07 pm
Khalida Nyoka I'm breaking in again: By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy. Kinetic energy? Or potential energy? Things at rest have potential energy, but things in movement have kinetic energy. In which case, how could you isolate the energy of movement(kinetic energy) let alone cause it to break down? ..Or rather, how could you do the same with potential energy for that matter? @.@;;
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:12 pm
Pageantry Khalida Nyoka I'm breaking in again: By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy. Kinetic energy? Or potential energy? Things at rest have potential energy, but things in movement have kinetic energy. In which case, how could you isolate the energy of movement(kinetic energy) let alone cause it to break down? ..Or rather, how could you do the same with potential energy for that matter? @.@;; Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:20 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 9:17 pm
Potential Energy is stored energy, like the energy you give a rubber band when you stretch it. It wouldn't make sense to break potential energy down, because some objects don't HAVE potential energy, like the mass of the earth, which is mrely suspended in space, and being dragged on the edge of a gravitational field. If you can make said energy from anything, it would go to reason that kinetic energy would be drained.
This "blank energy" could theoretically create/cause spontaneous loss of ambient heat, and if you consider Blank energy to be the building block of the universe, then it makes sense.
Take Chemistry for example, it's building blocks are the Elements. Since this energy can be programmed, wouldn't it make sense that it is the most basic form of all matter?
it would also explain big bang theory, thinking about it...
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:09 pm
Khalida Nyoka I'm breaking in again: By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy. Actuely no, You see all matter is actuely a form of energy simular to Ki.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:15 pm
The FLCL Guy Khalida Nyoka I'm breaking in again: By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy. Actuely no, You see all matter is actuely a form of energy simular to Ki. ..Eh.. ..Alright..Now I'm officially lost. sweatdrop
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:28 pm
The FLCL Guy Khalida Nyoka I'm breaking in again: By physical, I believe he means kinetic energy. Actuely no, You see all matter is actuely a form of energy simular to Ki. I can fathom the whole "matter is energy" thing. That I get. But the whole Ki thing just confused me. Plus, I don't think there's such a thing as "physical energy". There is energy that holds molecules and atoms together, but there is no energy itself that is "physical". And again, I understand the whole "Ki" concept (though I couldn't quite get what you were saying about Chi and Ki being two different things), but I don't see how that relates at all. To me, Ki means sort of the energy of the mind...but my definition of "mind" is probably closer to everyone else's definition of "soul" or "spirit". So how does that relate at all, besides being just another type of energy?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:29 pm
I don't understand you people! I can't fathom the whole "matter is energy" crap at all. You say "Oh- it's just vibrating at a very low frequency". Bull! Electrons tend to spin at frequencies beyond that of Gamma radiation, and yet we still consider Long Waves to be energy! (Long waves are about 1000000000000 times less frequent than Gamma radiation). Not only that- but energy has zero mass. Sure you can say "matter is just energized particles stuck together"- but that's not entirely true. Because neutrons and protons have MASS. Sure the proton may have a positive charge- but it also has mass. Sure the electron may have a negative charge- but it also has mass (though a mass about 1/100000000 that of a proton). And a neutron is actually a proton and electron stuck together (the sum of the mass of a proton and an electron equals the mass of a neutron). And simply thinking about the muon renders all believes that matter is energy null and void. A muon is a particle created when interstellar atoms near light speed hit objects approaching at a speed greater than the difference between their own speed and light. Basically- the force of the reaction is multiplied by a speed greater than light. The result? The proton and the electron swap polarities. A negative proton is created (an object with more mass but a negative charge) which exists for 10^-6 seconds and travels at 99.997% the speed of light.
Quantum physics is starting to hurt my head and you all probably don't understand what I'm saying- but matter isn't energy. They just aren't synonymous. There are theories that matter + antimatter = energy, but that still doesn't make matter the same as energy. It's similar to saying that a brain is a fully functional human being.
The only thing I can think of which this blank energy could be is some third type of stuff. Something that isn't matter or energy. Because it defies the rules of both.
If this blank energy has the power to turn matter into empty space and empty space into matter, then come talk to me. We've got quantum mechanics of universal creation and the spontaneity of matter to discuss. Until then, let it be known that I refuse to accept quantum uncertainty's statement that sub-atomic partcles are perserved but may, under un-observed and inconceivably rare circumstances, appear randomly into being. . . . eek Wow... I got really off topic sweatdrop Sorry about that.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 7:45 pm
If you want abstract science, here is a bit for you.
Science currently believes there are (I think) 27 dimensions. Logically I can only fathom six.
Mass and matter are actually seperate dimensions. They are Orthogonal to each other, and only really minimally affect each other. Time is its own dimension, as is energy.
first dimension: the line
second: shape (circle, square) third: volume fourth: mass fifth: energy sixth: time.
All of these affect each other, but by definition they should not.
It is thought that within the void of space that matter spontaneously forms and then vanishes from reality. However, as one particle forms, another is suppsoed to vanish. The conservation laws are not really defied by that.
I knows me some science. I can also talk to any professor for more details, if anyone would like more~!
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:02 am
what is mass? what makes something physical? what makes it so that when to molecules hit eachother them bounce from one another? What are atoms made of? Whats in the space where no molecules are at?
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:31 am
The FLCL Guy what is mass? what makes something physical? what makes it so that when to molecules hit eachother them bounce from one another? What are atoms made of? Whats in the space where no molecules are at? Mass: what we choose to measure matter by. Weight is actually the effect gravity has on a body of mass. Perception makes something physical. Energy exchange causes the atoms to bounce off of each other. The atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons but we don't know what makes those (I'd argue for everything being strings, personally ^_^, I like string theory). Where there is nothing "physical" we have no way of knowing, in order to observe it there would have to be matter there.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|