scary...

lol. Jedi are cool too.

well, i guess discussing how an A-bomb works is actually sorta approriate for this topic. LOL.


//Hey Joe! havent seen u in a while! Then of course I havent been here too much either

I was off all weekend, and then teusday I was busy on the job. Got back on some posts yesterday a little, but am back full strength today! HOORAY!

//Im surprised someone noticed!

You were the guy who was the most welcoming when I joined Ozzu. (I think) at least I think so. so I don't know, your just the fun guy, so yeah I noticed. whatever, i'll stop with the praise and mushy stuff now.

*sniff*

<B> I LOVE YOU GUYS!!!!!!

Whoa, easy there......everyone back away.....sloooowly

LOL Im joking. We lova ya too Joe!

Hey, no hard feelings. I'd back away from myself if I could........... but, it'll never work.

*whew* I'm way to tired. I was crying at that joke it was so funny. Yowza.

What you have said negates the theory of conservation of energy: "Energy cannot be created or destroyed"
They <b>can</b> turn energy back into mass, although to be fair it happens spontaneously, and generates a matter/antimatter pair, which tend to annihilate pretty damn quick. It is something to do with this that we can detect black holes. It's also based upon this that they made antimatter (antihydrogen to be precise).

There is not conversation of mass, or conservation of energy. There is <b>conservation of mass-energy</b>. As above fully interchangeable between the two, using <i>that</i> equation of einstein's

You can split a nucleus as calendae rightly said, but you <b>can</b> split up a proton/neutron or any other meson/baryon. You get quarks, but as quarks are very unstable and all-round funky (like <i>really</i> funky) they tend to re-form into something else pdq.

Fundamental particles = quarks and leptons, there are six of each.

leptons:
electron, electron-neutrino
muon, muon nutrino
tau, tau nutrino

quarks:
up, down,
charm, strange, (wtf were they thinking)
top, bottom

These are the fundamental pariticles, although I'm pretty sure that each and every one has it's antimatter equivilent (ie positron is antimatter electron)

It is these fundamental particles that cannot (as yet) be broken down into anything smaller. They are pretty sure they have found all of them (something to do with the number 6 and the pairings). They predicted most of them before any evidence of them was ever found. They are now trying to suss out if quarks and leptons are made of anything even teenier.

Nuetrons and protons are both made of up and down quarks, so just about all the matter that we see is made of ups, downs, and electrons.

If anyone wants some light reading on the subject, I suggest:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380168/qid=1086339204/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-8961512-9941745?v=glance&s=books&n=507846" target="_blank">A brief History Of Time</a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/055380202X/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/102-8961512-9941745?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">The Universe in a Nutshell</a>
Both by Steven hawkins, you can buy them both for $35.67

TBH, considering the level of the subject matter, Hawkins does a really good job of making the books accessible.

Agreed with smokenjoe on the fusion. Water as fuel -> *plum* of energy and the side-products are oxygen and helium (so we can all breate and be squeeky). I <i>think</i> the biggest problem they have is containing the reaction. Super-hot plasma cant touch the container else the container will melt lol, so they have to use computer-controlled electromagnets to suspend the ball of plasma in a vacuum. Also getting it started is a bitch as well

Jedis are super cool, this we know to be a fact.



All day long, you lucky boy!
I'm guesing that does not mean the same as it does over here

LOL geez, I have too ask, do you guys actually know all that stuff you post?! or do you look it up and then post what you find out? LOL everytime one of you comes up with that stuff I feel dumber by the moment. Damn, i dont know how i graduated highschool.

I read both of the books, and I did all this stuff A level physics last year - there was like a whole module (third of the year's course) on it. I think protons are (uud) and neutrons are (udd) in construction, but it could be the other way round, I don't know.

I had to think hard about some of the words, but mostly it is all right I'm sure. You can check it out if you want Oh and I spelled neutrons incorrectly

lol I feel so much better now!

ya, i guess what i said was sorta contridictory... mass and energy are interchangeable, and energy can neither be created or destroyed, so i guess there is such a thing as 'conservation of mass' but only in so much as it relates to 'conservation of energy'. there is no theory that says 'mass must be conserved' but if you think about it its true...

http://www.google.com/search?q=conserva ... 8&oe=utf-8

There actually is a conservation of mass. There is also conservation laws for charge, momentum and I think there are some other obscure ones that I don't remember.

The fact is they devised the two laws (mass and energy) because at the times they were thought to be true (and most of the time you can consider them separately). Later it was discovered that you could convert one to the other so they combined the two into one rule. I don't know if einstein discovered this but he did discover the relationship between them, hence e=m*c^2

The really annoying thing about science, in particular physics, is that they teach you stuff, and then the next step up they say "well what we taught you last year is wrong, this is how it <i>really</i> works". It's like peeling off layers, which actaully reflects the ways the discoveries were originaly made.

It's the same with types of energy, although you get taught that there are loads they can all be grouped, like potential energy in a piece of elastic is really electromagnetic energy, so is friction.

It's this that makes it difficult to learn higher level stuff on the internet, there are hundreds of sites with info on the outer layers, but very few that have info on the more in-depth.

How old are you calendae? It might be worth getting yourself a copy of the brief history of time, if this stuff interests you.

wow rtm, you sure are a good student!

im 16 (17 in july ), it does, i might just do that...
and i give... it does exist...