|
US Navy Makes Oil Obsolete
Cerberus.Halticus
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 257
By Cerberus.Halticus 2014-04-15 20:37:42
LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
[+]
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-15 20:46:44
So yes, you people know more about science than I do, but I bet I could analyze the ***out of James Joyce. But I can do both. Specialization is the appropriate survival strategy for this modern life we lead, but I prefer the broad approach.
Anyhow, I just found the sharp contrast between who knew what and who supported what and who I would have placed in each camp rather enlightening. It certainly cleared up some confusion I'd put myself in. I do wonder, though, if this is because science education has gotten that bad or if it is because interest in science has gotten that low. For my part, I am a lackluster student of science at best, but I still understand it quite well since I always go digging when I want to know an answer. And I read lots of hard SF.
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-04-15 21:19:39
Cerberus.Halticus said: »LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol I'm gonna keep it this way just for people like you.
Specialization is the appropriate survival strategy for this modern life we lead, but I prefer the broad approach. It's a modern way of thinking, I find. I don't see where people assume everyone is exactly the same way cognitively. Strengths and weaknesses are definitely a thing, and that applies to everything, including educational concepts.
Cerberus.Halticus
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 257
By Cerberus.Halticus 2014-04-15 21:33:20
Cerberus.Halticus said: »LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol I'm gonna keep it this way just for people like you.
Oh , you mean the realist? Mmmk thanks for keeping me that wway >.>
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-04-15 21:39:37
Cerberus.Halticus said: »Cerberus.Halticus said: »LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol I'm gonna keep it this way just for people like you.
Oh , you mean the realist? Mmmk thanks for keeping me that wway >.> No, I mean the complainy types who call attention to it. The best way to irritate those types is to keep things a-rollin'.
Cerberus.Halticus
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 257
By Cerberus.Halticus 2014-04-15 21:41:59
And the people who Irritate to keep things a-rollin are normally known as trolls
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-04-15 21:42:40
Cerberus.Halticus said: »And the people who Irritate to keep things a-rollin are normally known as trolls Hey, my name's Magnuss. It's a pleasure to meet you.
Cerberus.Halticus
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 257
By Cerberus.Halticus 2014-04-15 21:43:15
Ditto
Cerberus.Tikal
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4945
By Cerberus.Tikal 2014-04-15 21:44:46
I wouldn't call you a troll Mag.
Halt, you've added nothing to the discussion.
[+]
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-04-15 21:46:23
Well, crap. Now I have to try harder.
I don't wannnnnnaaaaaa...
[+]
Cerberus.Halticus
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 257
By Cerberus.Halticus 2014-04-15 21:47:19
I never said that I added anything other then my own personal opinion that assuming the united states navy is the direct responisible part to making oil obsolete is completely ludicrous. Just sharing my voice on the matter. That is all.
By fonewear 2014-04-15 22:44:25
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-04-15 23:00:42
[+]
Ragnarok.Hevans
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 15273
By Ragnarok.Hevans 2014-04-16 00:13:03
Cerberus.Halticus said: »I never said that I added anything other then my own personal opinion that assuming the united states navy is the direct responisible part to making oil obsolete is completely ludicrous. Just sharing my voice on the matter. That is all.
Cerberus.Halticus said: »LoL at the thread title, I mean C'mon, U.S. Navy is responsible for makining OIL...I say again .. F"KN OIL!!! obsolete? I thought I heard it all up to this point but this just takes things to a whole new level of HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE *** lol
sorry, but despite what delusion makes you think someone else is a troll, you rolled in here acting like a complete *** ***. maybe learn some manners. one day when you learn about hyperbole, you'll understand the thread title, and wont get your panties in a twist.
tbh calling magnuss a troll when he's the most non-troll person on the forums is... as you would say, "completely ludicrous".
*edit* aka
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-04-16 03:01:54
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »Matter can neither be created not destroyed outside of a nuclear reaction. What about a nuclear reaction actually creates or destroys matter?
E=MC2.
This is the difference between Newton and Einstein physics. In Newtonian physics matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, both are conserved and only can be converted from one form to another. A gallon of gasoline has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy present, upon being exposed to an exothermic reaction (combustion) it will release that energy in the form of thermal and kinetic energy. The matter that is left will have the exact same total mass and elements present only now at a lower energy state. That is a Newtonian reaction. Einstein discovered that matter and energy could be converted between each other as a result of how subatomic structures work. The results of his research was the famous formula E=MC2 which is the conversation rate between Energy and Matter with the speed of light in a vacuum acting as the coefficient.
In a nuclear reaction you take a specific amount of matter and after undergoing nuclear transmutation it comes out as a different element then it started with less mass then it started with. The amount of mass it lost was converted into energy in the form of high energy radioactive particles or radiated energy (x-ray / gamma ray / microwave). In a nuclear fission reactor you feed Uranium MOX (Thorium is on the rise as a next gen cleaner fuel) into a chamber where it's bombarded with slow neutrons, eventually the uranium cracks and creates more neutrons that cause more molecules to crack which results in a bunch of high speed particles exiting the moderator and hitting into a thermal wall where it's kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. When the fuel is finished cracking your left with various low energy unstable elements that continue undergoing radioactive decay, their total mass is less the the original fuel mass.
So I've done further research into what they've done and got the final numbers. It takes 23,200 gallons of seawater to produce enough carbon for 1 gallon of hydrocarbon fuel. The other 23,199 gallons of seawater are flushed back into the ocean in the same condition they were found in, minus 92~97% of their carbon.
Most of what they are taking out is the bicarbonate HCO3 which previously was incredibly hard to remove energy wise.
Carbondioxide as bicarbonate
Carbondioxide binds loosely with water to form bicarbonate:
CO2 + H2O <=> H2CO3 <=> H+ + HCO3- <=> H+ + H+ + CO32-
in the ratios CO2 & carbonic acid H2CO3 = 1%, bicarbonate HCO3- = 93%, carbonate CO32- =6%. These variants of CO2 (species) add up to the total amount of Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC), which also includes a smaller amount of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) that passes filtration techniques.
As for the insanely stupid argument of "we're using up the Oceans!!!". The Oceans have a mass of 1.4×10^21 kg (1,400,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons). There are 352,670,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water in those Oceans. And the Oceans hold most of the surface carbon supply, more then all the available Coal, Oil and Gas deposits by an entire order of magnitude. And finally, all the CO2 that gets put into the atmosphere ends up back into the Oceans as CO2 is heavier then air and doesn't stay in the atmosphere very long (geologically speaking).
We, quite literally, could not "use it up" unless we were built a giant garden hose to Mars and tried to water a planet sized garden.
And what's really sad is that so many of you idiots supported his comment....
Quote: If we destroy it, it will be gone forever.
It's the one truly irreplaceable natural resource. Stop destroying it, you idiots.
The process destroys the water molecule at the molecular level which BIG SURPRISE we won't be able to reverse.
Hydrogen is not only the most abundant element on earth, it's also the most abundant element in the universe. It's not a scarce resource and putting O2 into the atmosphere is actually a very good thing, though the amount we're talking is so miniscule as not even be measurable on a global scale.
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-04-16 03:14:47
Wait, somebody thinks electrolysis of water destroys the molecules forever?
When you burn hydrogen, meaning oxidize it, you get water.
Yes ... someone actually made an passionate argument for exactly that, and that we shouldn't do it because it's all the water we'll ever have and if we burn it'll be irreversible. Then a bunch of people agreed with him.
Next he'll try to convince us on how bad dihydrogren monoxide is for us and why we should support a law banning the dangerous chemical.
Cerberus.Pleebo
Server: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9720
By Cerberus.Pleebo 2014-04-16 03:45:20
I think it's just one of those myths that perpetuates because it's based on a particle of truth. Most of our water is thought to have come originally from comets at a time when those were much more plentiful so I can kinda see where the pseudoscience can wander in and take hold. The planet still gains and loses water on a regular basis, but it's such a slow process that we'll all be long, long dead before it could actually impact us \o/
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-04-16 04:00:33
Quote: The planet still gains and loses water on a regular basis, but it's such a slow process that we'll all be long, long dead before it could actually impact us \o/
The sun would of gone red giant if not supernova before then. In fact that would probably be the event that would cause all the Ocean's to boil away while the intense solar radiation forces our entire atmosphere into space.
It's based on people refusing to think for themselves and actually learn how physics & chemistry work then blindly believing whatever rhetoric they are fed. The logic is "we burn hydrocarbon fuel and we can run out, so therefor if we burn ocean water we also risk running out" coupled with the false conclusion that someone is "burning" water.
Just to show how easy this knowledge is to find, I googled "gasoline" and within the top segment is this.
Code 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 → 16 CO2 + 18 H2O
Which flatly says that burning any hydrocarbon fuel creates produces CO2 and water. Further googlefu produces the following atomic mass's for the involved molecules.
Code Carbon 12.0107
Hydrogren 1.00794
Oxygen 15.9994
Simple grade school math produces the total mass of the various components.
Code 192.1712 AU worth of Carbon
36.28584 AU worth of Hydrogen
399.985 AU worth of Oxygen
Assuming your getting your O2 from the atmosphere, that leaves only 15.8% of the reaction mass coming from Hydrogen, the rest is from the Carbon. We can then see exactly how little Hydrogen we are actually using vs the Carbon. And I was under the belief that most people here though taking CO2 out of the Oceans / Atmosphere was a good thing since we're putting so much into it?
Server: Phoenix
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3686
By Phoenix.Amandarius 2014-04-16 06:35:42
Filled my Jeep up with saltwater yesterday. So effing pissed.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4189
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-04-16 09:11:49
E=MC2. This is the difference between Newton and Einstein physics. In Newtonian physics matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, both are conserved and only can be converted from one form to another. A gallon of gasoline has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy present, upon being exposed to an exothermic reaction (combustion) it will release that energy in the form of thermal and kinetic energy. The matter that is left will have the exact same total mass and elements present only now at a lower energy state. That is a Newtonian reaction. Einstein discovered that matter and energy could be converted between each other as a result of how subatomic structures work. The results of his research was the famous formula E=MC2 which is the conversation rate between Energy and Matter with the speed of light in a vacuum acting as the coefficient.
In a nuclear reaction you take a specific amount of matter and after undergoing nuclear transmutation it comes out as a different element then it started with less mass then it started with. The amount of mass it lost was converted into energy in the form of high energy radioactive particles or radiated energy (x-ray / gamma ray / microwave). In a nuclear fission reactor you feed Uranium MOX (Thorium is on the rise as a next gen cleaner fuel) into a chamber where it's bombarded with slow neutrons, eventually the uranium cracks and creates more neutrons that cause more molecules to crack which results in a bunch of high speed particles exiting the moderator and hitting into a thermal wall where it's kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. When the fuel is finished cracking your left with various low energy unstable elements that continue undergoing radioactive decay, their total mass is less the the original fuel mass.
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote: A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another.
The equation lost mass? So what... When you burn a paper towel roll you loose mass too... but that doesn't mean you destroyed matter, it means it was converted in to energy. In most cases, the lost mass was converted to heat or light energy. (do note that I'm including the mass of the gases and particles that fly off when burning when I say it looses mass)
It wouldn't be called the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS if you could break it with a bit of nuclear power. In the first law of thermodynamics, there is a principal called the law of Conservation of energy. I recommend going back to your high school science books and having a look.
It states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. You are stating that this law is incorrect in the case of nuclear fission/fusion reactions.
If you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20130
By Shiva.Nikolce 2014-04-16 09:15:34
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.>
Bahamut.Milamber
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-04-16 13:12:07
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »E=MC2. This is the difference between Newton and Einstein physics. In Newtonian physics matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, both are conserved and only can be converted from one form to another. A gallon of gasoline has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy present, upon being exposed to an exothermic reaction (combustion) it will release that energy in the form of thermal and kinetic energy. The matter that is left will have the exact same total mass and elements present only now at a lower energy state. That is a Newtonian reaction. Einstein discovered that matter and energy could be converted between each other as a result of how subatomic structures work. The results of his research was the famous formula E=MC2 which is the conversation rate between Energy and Matter with the speed of light in a vacuum acting as the coefficient.
In a nuclear reaction you take a specific amount of matter and after undergoing nuclear transmutation it comes out as a different element then it started with less mass then it started with. The amount of mass it lost was converted into energy in the form of high energy radioactive particles or radiated energy (x-ray / gamma ray / microwave). In a nuclear fission reactor you feed Uranium MOX (Thorium is on the rise as a next gen cleaner fuel) into a chamber where it's bombarded with slow neutrons, eventually the uranium cracks and creates more neutrons that cause more molecules to crack which results in a bunch of high speed particles exiting the moderator and hitting into a thermal wall where it's kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. When the fuel is finished cracking your left with various low energy unstable elements that continue undergoing radioactive decay, their total mass is less the the original fuel mass.
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote: A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. This. It also has nothing to do with the differences between classical mechanics (Newton), relatavistic mechanics (Einstein/Lorentz), and quantum mechanics (Born/Heisenberg/Pauli and many others).
You are trying to describe the difference between chemical reactions (not involving changes to the nuclei of atoms) and nuclear reactions (involving changes to the nuclei of atoms). Or in another way, inter-atom bonds, rather than intra-atom bonds.
That's not to say that performing this conversion will make us run out of water; we certainly won't. On a large enough scale/small enough water source/sink, you may have some small localized changes in the acidity of the water, but I would doubt that it would be of any significance.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-16 15:47:46
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.> Are you being deliberately stupid?
For one, the water itself is hardly being touched. For two, even if it was, the process of combustion of hydrocarbons creates water. For three, water is neither a limited nor scarce resource. Some water molecules might have been bouncing around unadulterated for 65,000,000 years, but most of them have been through multiple billions of chemical reactions changing them into other molecules and back again.
Seriously, this is ***they teach 15-year-olds.
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-04-16 16:15:15
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »E=MC2. This is the difference between Newton and Einstein physics. In Newtonian physics matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, both are conserved and only can be converted from one form to another. A gallon of gasoline has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy present, upon being exposed to an exothermic reaction (combustion) it will release that energy in the form of thermal and kinetic energy. The matter that is left will have the exact same total mass and elements present only now at a lower energy state. That is a Newtonian reaction. Einstein discovered that matter and energy could be converted between each other as a result of how subatomic structures work. The results of his research was the famous formula E=MC2 which is the conversation rate between Energy and Matter with the speed of light in a vacuum acting as the coefficient.
In a nuclear reaction you take a specific amount of matter and after undergoing nuclear transmutation it comes out as a different element then it started with less mass then it started with. The amount of mass it lost was converted into energy in the form of high energy radioactive particles or radiated energy (x-ray / gamma ray / microwave). In a nuclear fission reactor you feed Uranium MOX (Thorium is on the rise as a next gen cleaner fuel) into a chamber where it's bombarded with slow neutrons, eventually the uranium cracks and creates more neutrons that cause more molecules to crack which results in a bunch of high speed particles exiting the moderator and hitting into a thermal wall where it's kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. When the fuel is finished cracking your left with various low energy unstable elements that continue undergoing radioactive decay, their total mass is less the the original fuel mass.
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote: A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another.
The equation lost mass? So what... When you burn a paper towel roll you loose mass too... but that doesn't mean you destroyed matter, it means it was converted in to energy. In most cases, the lost mass was converted to heat or light energy. (do note that I'm including the mass of the gases and particles that fly off when burning when I say it looses mass)
It wouldn't be called the LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS if you could break it with a bit of nuclear power. In the first law of thermodynamics, there is a principal called the law of Conservation of energy. I recommend going back to your high school science books and having a look.
It states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. You are stating that this law is incorrect in the case of nuclear fission/fusion reactions.
If you'd like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics
Umm your kind of making a strawman here in an attempt to argue.
And you definitely DO NOT lose mass when your burn a paper towel. You still have the exact same matter in the exact same elemental configuration. Some of it has been turned into a gas, but it still exists and the total mass has been conserved. Classic physics says you can neither create nor destroy matter or energy. Einstein modified it to say that nuclear reactions could convert from one to another and provided the equation for it. He also proved that space and time where not separate and that gravity effected both, but that's not what we're discussing.
So yeah go troll elsewhere.
Bismarck.Magnuss
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 28615
By Bismarck.Magnuss 2014-04-16 16:22:44
Huh. This thread is still going on.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael
Server: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2014-04-16 16:24:58
So I've done further research into what they've done .
and it takes a gallon of water to make a gallon of fuel....
so now your argument is "don't worry, we have plenty"
>.> Are you being deliberately stupid?
For one, the water itself is hardly being touched. For two, even if it was, the process of combustion of hydrocarbons creates water. For three, water is neither a limited nor scarce resource. Some water molecules might have been bouncing around unadulterated for 65,000,000 years, but most of them have been through multiple billions of chemical reactions changing them into other molecules and back again.
Seriously, this is ***they teach 15-year-olds.
Not only that, but even if the reaction didn't create water, according to one source I found there are an estimated 343,423,668,428,484,681,262 gallons of water in the ocean. Do you have any idea how long it would take us to use that up? According to another estimate based on how much gas the world uses in a day, it would take over 1 billion years.
Lakshmi.Saevel
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 2228
By Lakshmi.Saevel 2014-04-16 16:25:17
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: »E=MC2. This is the difference between Newton and Einstein physics. In Newtonian physics matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed, both are conserved and only can be converted from one form to another. A gallon of gasoline has a quantifiable amount of chemical energy present, upon being exposed to an exothermic reaction (combustion) it will release that energy in the form of thermal and kinetic energy. The matter that is left will have the exact same total mass and elements present only now at a lower energy state. That is a Newtonian reaction. Einstein discovered that matter and energy could be converted between each other as a result of how subatomic structures work. The results of his research was the famous formula E=MC2 which is the conversation rate between Energy and Matter with the speed of light in a vacuum acting as the coefficient.
In a nuclear reaction you take a specific amount of matter and after undergoing nuclear transmutation it comes out as a different element then it started with less mass then it started with. The amount of mass it lost was converted into energy in the form of high energy radioactive particles or radiated energy (x-ray / gamma ray / microwave). In a nuclear fission reactor you feed Uranium MOX (Thorium is on the rise as a next gen cleaner fuel) into a chamber where it's bombarded with slow neutrons, eventually the uranium cracks and creates more neutrons that cause more molecules to crack which results in a bunch of high speed particles exiting the moderator and hitting into a thermal wall where it's kinetic energy is converted into thermal energy. When the fuel is finished cracking your left with various low energy unstable elements that continue undergoing radioactive decay, their total mass is less the the original fuel mass.
You do know what E=MC2 means right? It means basically that matter and energy are proportionally equivalent and can be converted back and forth. To be precise:
Quote: A physical system has a property called energy and a corresponding property called mass; the two properties are equivalent in that they are always both present in the same (i.e. constant) proportion to one another. This. It also has nothing to do with the differences between classical mechanics (Newton), relatavistic mechanics (Einstein/Lorentz), and quantum mechanics (Born/Heisenberg/Pauli and many others).
You are trying to describe the difference between chemical reactions (not involving changes to the nuclei of atoms) and nuclear reactions (involving changes to the nuclei of atoms). Or in another way, inter-atom bonds, rather than intra-atom bonds.
That's not to say that performing this conversion will make us run out of water; we certainly won't. On a large enough scale/small enough water source/sink, you may have some small localized changes in the acidity of the water, but I would doubt that it would be of any significance.
If you would go back and read what I wrote and not what someone else is trying to say that I wrote, I said exactly that. And prior to Einstein there wasn't any understanding of nuclear reactions. Classic physics said they couldn't happen and treated matter and energy as two distinctly separate components of the universe. Einstein unified them as an expression of the same component (Mass-Energy). That concept is very important when dealing extremely large or extremely small amounts of either.
And yes in a nuclear reaction matter is destroyed and converted into it's ME equivalent of energy.
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3616
By Shiva.Onorgul 2014-04-16 16:57:25
If (hypothetically speaking) earth were to lose it's ozone layer, would water evaporate into space or would earth's gravitational force keep it from escaping our planet? Since water has an electric current I'd assume the water wouldn't travel that far out? We wouldn't lose our atmosphere, but we might lose a lot of liquid water as it vaporizes. The ozone layer doesn't hold our atmosphere in: it's part of the atmosphere itself. Gravitation and the magnetic action of our planet's core is what keeps our atmosphere from leaking into space.
Not sure what you mean about an electric current. Water has an assymetrical structure that makes it magnetically interesting, but H2O doesn't generate electricity.
Get the scoop, here.
Essentially, a "game changer" has been developed by the US Navy using salt water to successfully power engines. Already, the price for this fuel is 3-6 dollars a gallon, and it will only lower from there. It's time to give Big Oil the swift kick in the ass they deserve. Also, for you skeptics, here's the official report from the Navy themselves.
|
|