Ugouka

I have read a similar article, Airbrush. It is entirely plausible, the reaction does release tons of energy, and has a high chance of happening in these high energy areas.

Yes. I do know that evidence points towards an abundance of matter and the scarcity of anti-matter, but that could be explained by complex probability. In the Big Bang, the matter may have been equal to the antimatter, thus resulting in the release of energy. But, according to E=mc^2, Energy is a form of matter and can be changed back and forth. So, using logic and probability, there is bound to eventually be a scenario when the energy converts into a dominant form, while the smaller form reverts back into energy again, but not all of the dominant matter is wasted this time. This process could occur multiple times, and will eventually result in what we have now. This could, of course, go the other way as well. Probability could lead to energy reverting to primarily anti-matter with every reaction, leading to the opposite matter being dominant.

Well, from what I've read, there is anti-matter in every atom. I do not remember which source I got this from, but it stated that electrons are made of matter, and protons are made of a neutron and a positron. Although I do not know why the positron wouldn't react with the neutron if that was the case, so I may have to disregard this source unless I find valid evidence to support it.. I imagine that a slight magnetic field could keep it separate to prevent the reaction, but I don't know. As I am still fairly new to the world of cosmology and quantum mechanics, I am green around the edges and don't know a whole lot. The disadvantage to being a sponge is that sometimes you absorb incorrect information .

Well, we got a fairly small and streamlined car for the project, taking aerodynamics into account. We didn't want to add anything to increase this statistic, because of the added weight. The reason we used two wires was for stability. Other groups that used only one wire had their car flopping all over the place, greatly reducing their speed. And as for Captain's idea for a tube, one group did try that, and had some difficulty. I see how that could improve it, but their wheels were unsteady on the curved surface, which is why we did not use it.

Heya. I'm Ugouka. Always have been. Well..since I was 12, anywho. Kind of an odd name that many people ask me about. The way I got it was from a random name generator (sort of). I take the first letter of the first 6 names it gives me and make my name that if it can be pronounced. On that subject, it's pronounced (Oo-goo-kah), at least that's how I say it. Anyway, aside from my name I'm pretty much just a random person that enjoys science, writing, reading, and sarcasm. (Which I try to avoid in text, because it's not nearly as detectable in its more subtle forms.) As you may discover in my posts, I em uh horable spelar. I'm not quite that bad, but still. Don't waste your time correcting my spelling, I know it's bad. Uhmm...17 years old and nerdy. Not much else ya need to know. So...in conclusion.. HIYA!

Well, in my Honors Physics class, we just did a project with little hotwheels cars and rocket engines. Out objective was...well...to make them go as fast as possible. Our teacher basically gave us power tools and rocket engines to play with..because that couldn't go wrong or anything:rolleyes:. Anyway, I'm just curious if you guys have any suggestions on how to improve the design we used for our group. Our track had to be 5 meters long and we used photogates to record our time. The gates were spread out 1 meter apart to give us the average speed. What my group did was this: We took 5 meters of 2X4 wood and attached a wall to both ends of the track. At the start so the engine would have something to push against, and at the end so the rocket wouldn't fly into the other students and attack them. We attached 2 straws onto the sides of our hotwheels car and threaded wires through them and into the walls at the ends. When we tested it, we got a top speed of roughly 38 mph. It was a good time, but we felt it could have been better. Are there any suggestions for us to recreate this project with better results? -Thanks. Tell me if you need more info about the project. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedOh, by the way. I wasn't sure if this belonged in this section, or in the projects section. I ended up putting it in this one because I was asking for suggestions. Sorry if it's the wrong area.

I'm surprised that no one mentioned anything about magnetic fields. I'm not sure how effective they would be that close to the parent star, but a hot jupiter would have a powerful magnetic field that would repel the majority of antagonistic forces trying to strip it of its gas. I agree that gravity has something to do with it, but if you think about it, it needs to be more than that. I'm sure if it was powerful enough to retain it's gasses in that environment by gravity alone, it would not only be retaining gas, but stealing some from the parent star. I could be wrong, but I could be right. If this were true and it was relying on gravity alone, it could eventually turn into a binary system that could result in a collision because of the massive growth caused by the reactions inside the newly formed star. I will go off on this tangent more if you'd like me to, but if you don't want to hear it, then I won't waste our time.

Hawking radiation is a large portion of the loss of substance in the black hole, but there are also the jets that occasionally erupt from the poles of the black hole. These travel near the speed of light and contain incredible amounts of energy. As I haven't researched these fully, I cannot tell you exactly what causes them, but my thoughts are as follows: Because matter is largely empty space (something like 99.999%), the black hole's gravity is able to compress atoms to ridiculously small particles. Our current understanding of subatomic particles suggests that there is antimatter attached to one of the subatomic particles (and to the opposite particle in a positron) in the atom. The reaction between matter and antimatter is among the most violent and efficient processes known to man. There is a 100% energy return-nothing is wasted, both particles are completely converted into pure energy. Because atoms possess incredible amounts of energy, this process is violent and explosive. When this reaction happens in the black hole, the jets are launched outward. I can only assume these jets are ejected from outside the event horizon, or they find some way to weaken or overpower the gravity at their exit point. Again, I haven't researched this fully, so this might be, and probably is, all wrong, but these are just my thoughts on the matter.

I don't think the object leaves an after-image. That would require the light to linger there, however, with black holes, you can never know. Since time doesn't really behave near black holes, the light might never really enter the black hole, because no time has passed for it since it touched the event horizon. Really, I think it's beyond our comprehension at the moment. As far as I know, black holes don't "explode," but rather they evaporate-according to Hawking's theory. I have not really researched this fully yet. If you look into Hawking radiation you'll find your answer. I do know, though, that the larger the black hole, the faster it evaporates. Hope that helps you.