Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    MadDogMike is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,517

    Default

    Umm, I don't know if you were being serious or trying to be funny, but I'm just going to assume you're being serious.

    If you were 1000km below the Earth's surface (roughly 5300km away from the centre), imagine dividing the Earth into two separate pieces:
    1. A sphere centered on the Earth's core, with a radius of ~5300km (i.e. everything "below" you)
    2. The shell created by everything "above" you, with a hollow section in the middle (where the sphere from the point above would go)

    Assuming that the Earth's surface is a uniform sphere (i.e no irregular shape, as close to a proper sphere as possible) then the shell described by point 2 would have no gravitational effect on you while you're inside it, as it is exerting a uniform gravitational pull on you from all directions at once. You would only feel the gravity from what is "below" you (the sphere from point 1). Therefore for any calculations we can disregard the outer shell that is "above" you and replace what is "below" you with a point mass (since the gravity is centred on a single point in the centre of the mass, from your perspective).

  2. #22
    morten is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    2,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dhjana View Post
    Maybe she meant anti-matter.
    Antimatter weapon - Wiki

    Bad quality vid - antimatter as a weapon

  3. #23
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    ^ Producing antimatter would be even less of a problem though.

    It'll annihilate immediately unless sequestered, and it's pretty much impossible to produce in any significant quantity.

  4. #24
    Terasiel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina, US
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    Since you people seem to be smarter than time, space, and several Steven Hawkins in a High School debate...

    Can anyone explain to me what anti-matter is?

    I always thought it was just the opposite of matter. A void substance if you will. I can't conceive why anti-matter would "explode." Why can't it be classified under the same elements? Why would anti-Oxygen explode?

  5. #25
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    ^ Antimatter is formed from antiparticle analogs to matter (positron, antiproton, and antineutrons).

    Each of those have equivalent or inverted properties, for example, same mass as their matter analogs, but opposite charge.

    When they come into contact with their matter analog, they annihilate, converting their entire mass to energy and ceasing to exist (E=mc^2)

  6. #26
    Terasiel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina, US
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    ...So that's the reason they could theoretically be used for weapon purposes? The energy release generated in the "canceling out" process?

  7. #27
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    an antiparticle is a particle traveling backwards in time. light (ie photon) is the only substance that doesn't have an antiparticle because time is meaningless at the speed of light.

  8. #28
    adonai is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terasiel View Post
    ...So that's the reason they could theoretically be used for weapon purposes? The energy release generated in the "canceling out" process?
    Theoretically, yes.

    In real life, antimatter would make a crappy weapon. First off, it's extremely difficult to create and store. It's only true advantage is that it's an efficient conversion of mass to energy (it has more power/mass compared to other weapons), and it's clean (when compared to nuclear or chemical explosives). However, since the delivery mechanism also has to incorporate a containment mechanism, that completely defeats the purpose of having a small but powerful weapon.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79