|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 5:44 pm
I think it just means that technically, there is no nothing. Or it is possible for there to be nothing of something, in a certain situation, or... whatever.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 07, 2006 6:44 pm
PsychoDagger I think it just means that technically, there is no nothing. Or it is possible for there to be nothing of something, in a certain situation, or... whatever. but does that mean there can never be everything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 5:51 pm
This universe contains more nothing than something, matter wise. The space in between electrons and the nucleus and one atom to another is staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:25 pm
Masami Shiraishi I was the fastest sperm "Matter can never be created nor destroyed" Some synopsis of some rule that some old dead guy said, but if you really think about it, A dinosaur could have died and become part of the ground and eventually disingrates into the water and then you drink the water and you body absorbs those dinosaur molecule things and then your body does what it needs and excretes the leftovers in the cycle repeats in some format, so................... dramallama Conservation of matter biggrin I agree with you. It's like in that anime - "Fullmetal Alchemist." The main character once said, "We're nothing but a very tiny and insignificant part of this world. We're born, we live, we die, and we get decomposed. This cycle goes on irregardless." Even in chemical reactions with chemical changes. If you have hydrogen and chlorine, add them together, and you get hydrochloric acid, both your elements have become a part of a new substance, but they're not gone. I disagree with the law of conservation, respectfully, because I think that matter is inferrior to the human spirit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:23 pm
I was the fastest sperm "Matter can never be created nor destroyed" I don't like that rule because it is false. When antimatter collides with matter, both particles are obliterated (as in destroyed, blinked from existance, gone) and release extreme amounts of energy. Energy isnt matter, so theoretically, if there was enough antimatter to destroy all matter in a given space there would be 'nothing' left
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:38 pm
Burt_Gummer I was the fastest sperm "Matter can never be created nor destroyed" I don't like that rule because it is false. When antimatter collides with matter, both particles are obliterated (as in destroyed, blinked from existance, gone) and release extreme amounts of energy. Energy isnt matter, so theoretically, if there was enough antimatter to destroy all matter in a given space there would be 'nothing' left If my science teacher actually explained stuff to us, instead of just making us copy notes and giving us tests right after that, then I'd actually be able to understand and possibly reply or agree with to what you're saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:47 pm
Quote: If my science teacher actually explained stuff to us, instead of just making us copy notes and giving us tests right after that, then I'd actually be able to understand and possibly reply or agree with to what you're saying. Antimatter is a type of matter that does not occur in nature. It is theorised that when the big bang occured that some antimatter was created, but that amount is less than the amount of matter created or else the universe would be made up of nothing. Antimatter can however be created in very small amounts using particle accelerators. Antimatter IIRC has the opposite charge of it's equivalent to normal matter and is oriented differently. An example is a positron (antimatter) versus an electron (matter), when they collide, both are destroyed and release very large amounts of energy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:52 pm
Burt_Gummer Quote: If my science teacher actually explained stuff to us, instead of just making us copy notes and giving us tests right after that, then I'd actually be able to understand and possibly reply or agree with to what you're saying. Antimatter is a type of matter that does not occur in nature. It is theorised that when the big bang occured that some antimatter was created, but that amount is less than the amount of matter created or else the universe would be made up of nothing. Antimatter can however be created in very small amounts using particle accelerators. Antimatter IIRC has the opposite charge of it's equivalent to normal matter and is oriented differently. An example is a positron (antimatter) versus an electron (matter), when they collide, both are destroyed and release very large amounts of energy. (1) What is IIRC?
(2) Is it sort of like when you split an atom, it's supposed to blow up or something?
(3) Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me sweatdrop .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:58 pm
1) IIRC=If I remember correctly
2) Kinda, atoms are held together by energy, so when they are split, energy is released. Since atoms contain energy, you could assume that smaller particles would also have enrgy, so that when they are obliterated that energy is released. An antimatter collision is on a smaller scale however, and it releases much more energy, but the basic concept is similar.
3) Your welcome smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:17 pm
Are you like a teacher or professor something xd ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 2:11 pm
My thoughts on Nothing = Everything:
This always seemed like one of those pseudo-deep things to talk about. I'm sure people mean well but it does get silly some times.
Nothing is exactly that. The absence of something, or all things. Nothing it generally a concept. I don't feel that nothing actually applies in any real sense. It is a place holder like Zero. Zero exists as a way of holding space, it is not actually counted. Math revolves around quantity, so quantity nothing is relatively useless to point out. But it holds a space that is necesary for other qunatities. It exists in concept so that the rest of it's theory can make sense.
Nothing can never actually happen, simply because there is always something. If nothing happens when all somethings are gone...there has to be SOMETHING or else there isn't a single thing that defines nothing, it lacks any amount of proof or observation. Something is always there to experience "nothing." So obviously if something experienced it, it wasn't REALLY nothing.
Nothing is exactly what it says, a total lack of any single thing. However I believe it exists entirely in concept and not necesarily in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:14 pm
[XxGuardianDevilxX] Are you like a teacher or professor something xd ? No, just a senior in High School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2006 5:45 pm
Funny, I thought that Nothing = Nothing confused My calculator must be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 3:19 pm
WinNiEdApOoP Funny, I thought that Nothing = Nothing confused My calculator must be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
![[XxGuardianDevilxX]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/1a/76/47635c7120761a_flip.png?t=1193913381_6.00_00)
