A stupid theroy

[TFU] Thegoon84 said:
Great post. Thank you
Click to expand...

You mangled the quoting, so I'll have to manually quote for the bits I want to reply to:

Sorry, what i meant by that was what ever the basic building blocks of sub atomic particles are, aka the "power" we use and consume
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Those would be don'tknows :) Seriously, we don't know. People have found answers on a smaller and smaller scale, but not the end point. If there is a meaningful one.

First we had atoms. Those were the absolutely smallest thing. People were pretty sure of that at the time, so sure that they named them that way. "atom" means "without parts". Then people found that atoms do have parts. Oops, too late to change the name! :) Atoms are made of protons, electrons and usually (but not always) neutrons. So the obvious question was what those are made of. Quarks. So what are quarks made of? They're made of don'tknows :) Are they made of matter at all? Matter and energy are fundamentally the same thing (bizarre though that sounds, it really does seem to be true - we even know the conversion factor). So what is that thing? It's a don'tknow.

I don't know if the universe really is bloody weird or if it makes perfect sense but we don't understand it. It's one of those two things.

Yes, but what if the output of a star isn't enough to sustain our output need.... and we as a result need to draw more power without having to worry about super nova
Click to expand...

Well, you'd have to do that with a star you don't need for survival. Assuming some way is devised to increase the rate of fusion in a star and thus increase the power output of the star but somehow not destabilise it, it would make any inhabitable planet orbiting it uninhabitable. So you would require the ability to someone transmit power over interstellar distances...and if you could do that then a better course of action would be to use more than one star rather than overclocking one star. Or use a bigger, more powerful star that nothing can live near anyway. Using a blue hypergiant as a power source would be vastly more effective than overclocking a star like our own. There are stars with a power output more than a million times that of Sol - no way could you overclock a star by that much.

But if we're assuming whatever technology is required we'd be better off assuming some sort of controlled matter-antimatter annihilation. That's far more efficient at converting matter to energy than even nuclear fusion and it doesn't require a star.

Yes absolutely, as i said, we know that eventually the universe will go dark.... Also the fact all stars with go super/hyper Nova... We might even see a Hyper Nova in ourlife time!
Click to expand...

Not all stars, no. Not by a long chalk. Most are far too small for that. There's a limit, which I can't remember off the top of my head. Several limits, but the minimum for a supernova is a lot more massive than our star. I'm pulling "Chandrasakhar" out of my memory, but I'm not sure that's the right spelling or that the limit he discovered is that one...well, I was close. It's "Chandrasekhar" and it is related to the limit for one type of supernova.
 
Angilion said:
You mangled the quoting, so I'll have to manually quote for the bits I want to reply to:



Ah, I see. Those would be don'tknows :) Seriously, we don't know. People have found answers on a smaller and smaller scale, but not the end point. If there is a meaningful one.

First we had atoms. Those were the absolutely smallest thing. People were pretty sure of that at the time, so sure that they named them that way. "atom" means "without parts". Then people found that atoms do have parts. Oops, too late to change the name! :) Atoms are made of protons, electrons and usually (but not always) neutrons. So the obvious question was what those are made of. Quarks. So what are quarks made of? They're made of don'tknows :) Are they made of matter at all? Matter and energy are fundamentally the same thing (bizarre though that sounds, it really does seem to be true - we even know the conversion factor). So what is that thing? It's a don'tknow.

I don't know if the universe really is bloody weird or if it makes perfect sense but we don't understand it. It's one of those two things.



Well, you'd have to do that with a star you don't need for survival. Assuming some way is devised to increase the rate of fusion in a star and thus increase the power output of the star but somehow not destabilise it, it would make any inhabitable planet orbiting it uninhabitable. So you would require the ability to someone transmit power over interstellar distances...and if you could do that then a better course of action would be to use more than one star rather than overclocking one star. Or use a bigger, more powerful star that nothing can live near anyway. Using a blue hypergiant as a power source would be vastly more effective than overclocking a star like our own. There are stars with a power output more than a million times that of Sol - no way could you overclock a star by that much.

But if we're assuming whatever technology is required we'd be better off assuming some sort of controlled matter-antimatter annihilation. That's far more efficient at converting matter to energy than even nuclear fusion and it doesn't require a star.



Not all stars, no. Not by a long chalk. Most are far too small for that. There's a limit, which I can't remember off the top of my head. Several limits, but the minimum for a supernova is a lot more massive than our star. I'm pulling "Chandrasakhar" out of my memory, but I'm not sure that's the right spelling or that the limit he discovered is that one...well, I was close. It's "Chandrasekhar" and it is related to the limit for one type of supernova.
Click to expand...

I legitimately enjoyed reading every sentence there. If its ok, i'll read it tomorrow and ask any further questions!

Jokes aside, i wouldn't post this on my FB page because i knew i wouldn't get the legit amazing replies i got from GD. Cheers guys, we all love a bit "pub chat".... I unfortunately dont know any like minded idioits who chat **** about science when they've had a few Whiskeys!

If only there a "Chat **** and get scienced" group.... man would i join!
 
[TFU] Thegoon84 said:
Damn you're knowledge of quatum mechanics.... WHY DID I OPEN THE BOX!!!!! However, As per your statement, "anyone who pretends to understand it, doesn't really"....... Well........ Do you?
Click to expand...

I know enough about reality to spot the flaw in schrodingers experiment- his 3 states of alive, dead or both are wrong. There's only 1 state the cat will be in when you open the box- bloody furious.
 
Well it seems Goon went passed out went to sleep an hour ago, I shall read this thread tomorrow and attempt to make some sense of it. My hopes are low.
 
I see absolutely no problem with this post :D

Not editing anything.... Think big or go home lads..... THINK BIG!

I've realised that i have a super power..... Whiskey turns me into Neil Degrasse Tyson.
 
I think the OP is pondering too big a subject [ I blame The Big Bang Thorey ].

We don't even understand the reason for the existence of Cheesy-Peas or............ the Welsh !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom