New Theory

Pages:
1
2

New Theory
Tweet Topic Started: Nov 8 2008, 12:49 PM (672 Views)
Incog	Nov 8 2008, 12:49 PM Post #1
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	I was in bed thinking of shit when it occured to me (and I thought of this MYSELF, i'm not suscribed to any science magazines): Energy CANNOT be created NOR destroyed. Nuclear reactions split an atom and get a shitload (like really) of energy out of that. Hence, there is energy stored in the atom, the atom which is ofc made of protons, electrons, and other shit (I dont know about the smaller entities). Bear with me here: If energy can't be made, it's stored in atoms. So, if it's in the atoms, it must mean that somewhere along the line, elements (ie, atoms, electrons, everything that makes up molecules and nucleuses) and energy are made of the same thing. This thing, which I'll dub "Incogstuff" for the sake of being understood is much smaller than the smallest part of an atom we know of today. Incogstuff is what makes up energy, like wool is what makes up a sweater. Incogstuff is what makes up the elements we know of today. Basically, elements and energy are both made of up the same substance: Incogstuff. It's just a different FORM. See, my theory is that Incogstuff that is in the universe, free, without being bonded to other Incogstuff, is energy. And it can move in different ways. Light would be one way for the Incogstuff to move around, electricity would be another way, basically, Incogstuff that isn't bound to other Incogstuff is energy. Now, Incogstuff that IS stuck with other Incogstuff, would form the elements. Like how an iron atom (did I say that right?) forms iron if you clump a shitload of it together. The parts of an atom are made of Incogstuff. The form of the structure decides what kind of part of the atom the Incogstuff will form. Now Incogstuff is very very very very very very very very very very small. It's so fucking tiny that we haven't discovered it yet, and have no way to do so with our current and crude instruments (remember, this is pure theory). In the middle ages, we had no fucking way of finding out atoms made up everything we know of, because we didn't have the knowledge of the universe we had when atoms were discovered. Nor did we have any idea of how to prove their existence. Hence, Incogstuff has been unfindable to men because we hadn't imagined their existence. And because with our current knowledge, and instruments we have no way of finding them, even less way of proving their existence. We can only theorise, which is what i'm doing atm. Ok people, now I realise that that post is NOT clear at all, I'm having trouble explaining myself for some reason. It's an abstract theory. It's purely an idea that I had when I thought of nuclear reactios during engineering class, when i got bored of listening to the teacher. Because this might not be clear at all, ask any question and I'll answer it the best I can. Since this is an idea that hit me when I was bored in class, it might as well not be a valid one. Keep in mind that I'm 16, I only got 11/20 ( ) on my last math test, so this might as well be the sorriest yet funniest peice of crap you've read in a long time.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Nov 8 2008, 01:05 PM Post #2
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	If energy cannot be created, then that would mean that it would be impossible for us and this universe to exist. =D
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Nov 8 2008, 01:06 PM Post #3
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Ultra-Musketeer Nov 8 2008, 03:05 PM If energy cannot be created, then that would mean that it would be impossible for us and this universe to exist. =D Cbf talking about THAT.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Nov 8 2008, 01:16 PM Post #4
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	Well yes, but it shows that the very basics of your little theory are BS.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Nov 8 2008, 01:23 PM Post #5
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	I was really bored..... I think that thermodynamically you really can't create or destroy energy, at least not since the begnning of the universe. My theory is that (did you read it?) energy is everything and that everything is energy. Instead of talking about the begginning of it all (big bang or God who cares), lets talk about now.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Nov 8 2008, 01:39 PM Post #6
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	:\| Well assuming that there is no part of the universe that is 273.15 degrees celcius, then yes, everything around us is motivated by energy, that is, if motivated is the right word to use here. energy can't be destroyed, but it most certainly can be created, and it can wear out.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Jack the IV	Nov 8 2008, 06:27 PM Post #7
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Energy is never created, it is only transferred.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Jam	Nov 8 2008, 07:21 PM Post #8
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	Jack the IV Nov 8 2008, 01:27 PM Energy is never created, it is only transferred. Thats why I'm harnessing energy from the nuclear holocaust in a parallel universe in order to power my faster-than-light spacecraft and terraforming machine so that I can start a colony of Jam clones on a habitablel planet in the Andromedon galaxy.
	Long live Carolus


Jack the IV	Nov 8 2008, 08:43 PM Post #9
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Marlonsm	Nov 8 2008, 10:26 PM Post #10
Sergeant Posts: 128 Group: A414A Member Member #91 Joined: July 4, 2008	Actually from what I understood, you've just discovered the "Higgs Boson" too bad Higgs did it before. or else the LHC would be built to look for some icognstuff



Incog	Nov 8 2008, 10:47 PM Post #11
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Damnit. Why do people always discover things before me? I figured out P = m x g before learning it in class........not fair! :(! Ah well, still fun, thanks marlo :P
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Marlonsm	Nov 9 2008, 01:11 AM Post #12
Sergeant Posts: 128 Group: A414A Member Member #91 Joined: July 4, 2008	Incognoto Nov 8 2008, 10:47 PM Damnit. Why do people always discover things before me? I figured out P = m x g before learning it in class........not fair! :(! Ah well, still fun, thanks marlo :P I also figured out many formulas before learning them. like Torricelli's:( V� = V0� + 2a(delta)S) when I saw in the book the formula I was using to solve everything in a few seconds while all others were taking minutes I was like



_Saladin_	Nov 9 2008, 01:17 AM Post #13
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	If you could summarize your main point in a sentence, that would be great, because I don't understand what you're trying to say. What are you suggesting?



Incog	Nov 9 2008, 08:51 AM Post #14
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	Energy and atoms are made of the same thing, something so small we dont have the equipment to find it and prove its existence yet.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


gs	Nov 9 2008, 10:42 AM Post #15
Slow down Posts: 16,297 Group: Animals Member #1 Joined: December 12, 2007	you mean electrons?



Marlonsm	Nov 9 2008, 12:45 PM Post #16
Sergeant Posts: 128 Group: A414A Member Member #91 Joined: July 4, 2008	He means Higgs Boson, As far as I know, it's the particle that makes energy gain mass.



gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:01 AM Post #17
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	sorry to break up this friendly discussion, but you are all wrong (except for Jam, who truly is harnessing power from a nuclear holocaust) What you are experiencing is the energy inside of the nuclues. In a nucleus of say, uranium, there are 92 protons. Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together, and when an atom is split, it requires less energy to hold the nucleus together, and the excess energy is given off as just energy, its called nuclear fission



Jam	Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM Post #18
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html
	Long live Carolus


gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:16 AM Post #19
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical



Jam	Nov 10 2008, 12:24 AM Post #20
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:16 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical Technically I am not being technical, but rather percise.
	Long live Carolus


gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:26 AM Post #21
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:24 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:16 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical Technically I am not being technical, but rather percise. technically saying technically is technical



Jam	Nov 10 2008, 12:28 AM Post #22
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:26 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:24 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:16 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical Technically I am not being technical, but rather percise. technically saying technically is technical Technically I was referring to my first statement and not the statement in which I was referring to my first statement.
	Long live Carolus


gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:32 AM Post #23
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:28 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:26 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:24 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:16 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical Technically I am not being technical, but rather percise. technically saying technically is technical Technically my past tense used implies that I was referring to my first statement and not the statement in which I was referring to my first statement. technically you shouldnt have put used, but use, but oh well, were not all perfect. And I still think that you were being technical in your first argument



Jam	Nov 10 2008, 12:36 AM Post #24
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:32 PM technically you shouldnt have put used, but use, but oh well, were not all perfect. And I still think that you were being technical in your first argument 'used' because I used it, I'm not using it so why should I say 'use'.
	Long live Carolus


gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:37 AM Post #25
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:36 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:32 PM technically you shouldnt have put used, but use, but oh well, were not all perfect. And I still think that you were being technical in your first argument 'used' because I used it, I'm not using it so why should I say 'use'. "my past tense used" is not correct, saying 'my past tense use of" would be gramatically correct



Jam	Nov 10 2008, 12:39 AM Post #26
Fruit Based Jam Posts: 7,945 Group: A414A Member Member #98 Joined: July 11, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:37 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:36 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:32 PM technically you shouldnt have put used, but use, but oh well, were not all perfect. And I still think that you were being technical in your first argument 'used' because I used it, I'm not using it so why should I say 'use'. "my past tense used" is not correct, saying 'my past tense use of" would be gramatically correct Ok, so then "the past tense I used"
	Long live Carolus


gooback	Nov 10 2008, 12:40 AM Post #27
Lieutenant Posts: 260 Group: Member Member #133 Joined: October 29, 2008	you would have to say "in the past tense, I used technically referring to..."



Vondongo	Nov 10 2008, 03:03 AM Post #28
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	gooback Nov 9 2008, 08:32 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:28 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:26 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:24 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:16 PM Hyperactive Jam Nov 10 2008, 12:12 AM gooback Nov 9 2008, 07:01 PM Now think, protons are all positively charged, yet they are all so close together in the atom, so what keeps them together??? ENERGY, there is actually energy keeping a nucleus together Actually its called the Strong Nuclear Force, and it has to do with neutrons. http://aether.lbl.gov/elements/stellar/strong/strong.html gaaah, its a form of energy keeping the particles together that is given off when the particles are split, stop being so technical Technically I am not being technical, but rather percise. technically saying technically is technical Technically my past tense used implies that I was referring to my first statement and not the statement in which I was referring to my first statement. technically you shouldnt have put used, but use, but oh well, were not all perfect. And I still think that you were being technical in your first argument Who or what "were not all perfect?"



MaxJ	Nov 10 2008, 07:59 AM Post #29
Wij van A414A adviseren A414A Posts: 9,339 Group: Moderator Member #58 Joined: April 21, 2008	gooback Nov 10 2008, 01:40 AM you would have to say "in the past tense, I used technically referring to..." That's the past continuous I think hmmmm
	Jouw wereld, jouw A414A forum.


The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Nov 10 2008, 12:31 PM Post #30
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	gooback, Jam, Redemption, you nerdy nubs are beginning to confuse me.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2