that's right, you can't debate this with me.Originally Posted by BRP
that's right, you can't debate this with me.Originally Posted by BRP
Please spend some effort and learn that you can not only reply to two people in one post, but you can also quote two people in one post.
We should start a war pool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StrangeletOriginally Posted by guartz
I'm not worried.If the strange matter hypothesis is correct then when a strangelet from space hits the Earth (or any other lump of ordinary matter) it could convert it to strange matter. The disaster scenario is this: one strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, and sends pieces (more strangelets) flying in all directions. These merge with other nuclei and convert them, leading to a chain reaction, at the end of which all the nuclei of all the atoms have been converted, and Earth has been reduced to a hot cloud of strangelets.
The general belief is that this would not happen, because most models predict that strangelets, like nuclei, are positively charged, so they are electrostatically repelled by nuclei, and would rarely merge with them.[6] However, the idea has received some media attention [7], [8], and concerns of this type were raised at the commencement of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiment at Brookhaven, which could potentially have created strangelets. A detailed analysis [9] concluded that the RHIC collisions were comparable to ones that naturally occur as cosmic rays traverse the solar system, so we would already have seen such a disaster if it were possible.
Is the "strange matter hypothesis" true?
The strange matter hypothesis is generally regarded as a radical idea. Because one strangelet can convert a neutron star to a strange star, it seems likely that if the strange matter hypothesis were correct, all the objects we observe as neutron stars would actually have to be strange stars. But there is good evidence that at least some of them are not strange stars, and have fairly thick crusts of nuclear matter. There is an ongoing debate among experts on this question.
It's a distance!Originally Posted by senoska
Didn't anyone read what the guy in boulder gym says? Gawsh!
Anyway, I was originally clarifying the current state of antimatter research and creation for anyone who cared. Also, according to the principles of relativity, no particle can reach the speed of light.
Ya know I thought I read somewhere of a bomb being worked on that could just vaporize all the people in a certain radius but not harm any of the buildings or enviorment at all... that would be cool.
I think your talking about the neutron bomb which some were made during the Cold War, but don't believe theyre being made anymore. Plus neutrons bombs actually do instantly damage buildings and kill trees and plants since it relies on radiation to do the killing.Originally Posted by Boyiee
[quote:17ebb]
If the strange matter hypothesis is correct then when a strangelet from space hits the Earth (or any other lump of ordinary matter) it could convert it to strange matter. The disaster scenario is this: one strangelet hits a nucleus, catalyzing its immediate conversion to strange matter. This liberates energy, and sends pieces (more strangelets) flying in all directions. These merge with other nuclei and convert them, leading to a chain reaction, at the end of which all the nuclei of all the atoms have been converted, and Earth has been reduced to a hot cloud of strangelets.
The general belief is that this would not happen, because most models predict that strangelets, like nuclei, are positively charged, so they are electrostatically repelled by nuclei, and would rarely merge with them.[6] However, the idea has received some media attention [7], [8], and concerns of this type were raised at the commencement of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) experiment at Brookhaven, which could potentially have created strangelets. A detailed analysis [9] concluded that the RHIC collisions were comparable to ones that naturally occur as cosmic rays traverse the solar system, so we would already have seen such a disaster if it were possible.
Is the "strange matter hypothesis" true?
The strange matter hypothesis is generally regarded as a radical idea. Because one strangelet can convert a neutron star to a strange star, it seems likely that if the strange matter hypothesis were correct, all the objects we observe as neutron stars would actually have to be strange stars. But there is good evidence that at least some of them are not strange stars, and have fairly thick crusts of nuclear matter. There is an ongoing debate among experts on this question.
I'm not worried.[/quote:17ebb]
I always get kinda nervous when I read about some scientists somewhere doing some experiment to create miniature black holes, antimatter, or now this new amazingly devastating strange matter. Wouldn't it suck if in doing one experiment they created this extinction-level-event that nobody even knew was possible, or had a chance of happening. Who'd be pissed off, say I /
Of course, you wouldn't be around afterwards to be pissed about anything, but yeah. Gogo scientists testing things that can potentially vaporize the entirety of our planet.
Mine would be cooler.Originally Posted by Stee
It's probably worth the salary. If shit ends, it ends, gonna happen sooner or later. Why not at the hands of a professional!?!?Originally Posted by Jotaru
Thing is, if something that powerful could happen, we would have noticed it in space. It's scary according to our model, but those experiment goes beyond what our model can predict. In other word, we don't know wtf is going to happen, but it it was potentially deadly, we would have seen it happen in space.Originally Posted by Jotaru
Antimatter= matter, and its not dangerous at all. Miniature black hole can't be reproduce. Worst case scenario would be a huge atomic explosion.
Fuck education,
fuck space exploration,
fuck healthcare...
...let's make a bigger bomb than country X.
Fuck me humans are stupid.
Bravo!Originally Posted by Magewrath
I was reading this thread, until quartz started to quote Wikipedia as a credible source.
Congratulations on quoting a publicly created, entirely changeable source. I can't fucking stand when people say, "WELL IT'S ON THE WIKI, IT MUST BE TRUE!!!!!".
That's the spirit!Originally Posted by Magewrath
It's both. Time and space are intrinsically relatedOriginally Posted by Viena
![]()
Well now that they have a bigger bomb, our time will be spent trying to build a counter; a larger and bigger bomb. Meanwhile until we do that, their focus can be off the bomb competition and they can focus on space/education/healthcare till our bomb is done... Then when we finish ours, we can relax and do the space/education/healthcare thing while they work on another bomb.Originally Posted by Saga
ITS AN ENDLESS CYCLE TILL SOMEONE MESSES UP AND PLAYS WITH THE WRONG ATOM AND KILLS US ALL WOOOOOO
You have to quote potentially bias opinions from the internet, everything else is brainwashing propaganda you know.Originally Posted by Izzy
No, it's a unit of distance.Originally Posted by senoska
Although the political argument was fun to read, no-one can really argue 100% factually either side, as the general public only get their (respective) media's viewpoint.
Although the anti-matter bomb comment was funny, less sci-fi for that boy please.