How does kilojoules of energy get converted into mass? I don't know much physics, but I don't think such technology exists.
This is a hypothetical exercise. We need it on earth because that's what the picture had on it.

Also, when I was little, I thought I could fly by pulling myself up. I just thought I wasn't strong enough.

E=mc²

We can transform energy into mass, and it has already been done.

Quote from payne

E=mc²

We can transform energy into mass, and it has already been done.

Experiments, too.

In fact, one kilogram of anything = 89,875,517,873,681,784 Joules, at 100% conversion. However, we haven't even come close to 100% yield, experimental yield is less than 20% in almost all cases.

Do not deny this logic.





Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 23 2010, 12:04 am by OlimarandLouie.

I understand that. But I didn't get why the amount of energy was expressed in kilograms, not (kilo/mega/giga)joules. Also, as I said before, I didn't know we had the technology to convert energy into mass. I know how the reverse works.

It's not really "technology to convert energy into mass", but more like a scientific experiment that involves energy, and when the scientists analyze the particles coming out, they notice the creation of some mass particle I can't remember the name.

I would like all of the following questions to be answered:

"Where does the sun hide at night?" - On the opposite side of the planet.

"Did people really used to live in black and white?" - No.

"Is the world round?" - Yes.

"Is it flat?" - No.

"What's with islands?" - Every landmass is an island, some are just bigger than others.

"What's with deserts?" - The landscape is due to high temperatures and dry climate.

"What is Alaska?" - A state of the United States, and the area furthest northwest in North America.

"Who is Brazil?" - Brazil is not referring to a person, but rather a country in South America.

"Isn't a volcano just an angry hill?" - No, landscape doesn't have emotions.

"How did God even think up dirt?" - He didn't, God doesn't "think up" things.

"Metal? Girls? Iron? Fire?" - These questions are not worded appropriately.

"How'd they get my voice in a telephone wire?" - By converting sound waves into electrical signals.

"Why are pants different than shirts?" - They are designed to fit different areas of the body.

"Fucking blankets, how do they work?" - They insulate your body from losing heat.

"How do suitcases always know where to meet you?" - The baggage handlers are the ones responsible for this.

"Are children small or just far away?" - Small.

"Why do some mountains look like presidents?" - They were purposely carved to look that way.

"What the fuck is a clock?" - A time-keeping device.

Quote from name:Azrael.Wrath

"Why do some mountains look like presidents?" - They were purposely carved to look that way.

Favorite.

http://www.urlesque.com/2010/10/25/i-showed-troll-physics-comics-to-a-physics-professor/

Haha funny troll physics blah. blah b.ah.

One thing I could never get my head around is this.

Assuming that the universe is constantly expanding (which it is). And, assuming that the rate at which it is expanding is increasing (which it is - give or take a few patches of 'dark matter'). Then, theoretically, we are at the centre of the universe? BECAUSE - if the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light (which I would assume that it is), we will never be able to see past the point (spatially) in which it had accelerated faster than the speed of light.

Of course, we are not at the centre of the universe, and such a statement would be nigh-impossible to prove or disprove. But, surely we are confined to a portion of the universe (excluding material limitations).

quick edit:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is being sabotaged by scientists from the future.

Thoughts?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 27 2010, 12:31 am by Cardinal.

Because they know the results of what should happen if it worked properly, and they don't want us to find out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Also, the universe as a whole is expanding, not just the size of the boundary of the universe; thus from every vantage point, you would appear to be at the center of the universe, when you really aren't.

Whoa. For once I catch myself wondering why that one wouldn't work...

Simply put: we can't have balls of air that are liter than water.

Pretty much any kind of hollow ball would work.

Someone should try it and see what happens

Energy is required to push the balls of air into the tank in the first place, which is only partially recovered by the generator. It would be a nice executive toy if you wound the chains with a motor, but you cannot recvoer energy from it.

You noobs..

Those are all preposterous mysteries.
Try this one for size:



Amazing. It's MAGIC

No u



The ducks were off beat