well a pound worth of anti-matter could wipe out the human race and every thing on earth nicely

Well, actually, a pound of antimatter would only wipe out another pound of matter. The resulting energy from the matter and anti-matter cancelling each other out might harm everything, say, ten feet away. But you'd need a LOT more antimatter to render Earth uninhabitable. So much, in fact, that even if you slaved all of Earth's resources and production facilities into making antimatter, it'd still take you a couple years to get enough.

Nooooo, the easiest way to destroy all of humanity would be to drop some Cobalt-Thorium G bombs. Huge amounts of HIGHLY radioactive fallout would render the surface of the Earth totally uninhabitable for at least 20 years. And its AWFULLY hard to raise crops underground when you don't have any sunlight...

so your saying that a anti-matter matter reaction has less power then the ration of oxygen and hydrogen. look here WWW Linka anti-matter matter ration has more power then you think.



well i saw some thing on the science channel i think that there are making caves usable for agriculture with specale UV lights or something like that i can't remember

Sure, antimatter could work. We just need to start mining for antimatter in the Imaginary Land of Fantasyville. Unless you want to start collecting the antimatter we get from particle collisions.

Someone suggest we do that, so I can laugh at you.

-Bigglesworth

Hmmmm...? The Second Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that all energy in the universe is rapidly becoming unusable. If this be so, then it follows that eventually there will no longer be usable energy in the universe, unless more is being created. Which directly contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics, as it states that energy (and matter) can be neither created nor destroyed. We therefore are left with the conclusion that eventually the universe will have no usable energy left. If the universe has been around forever, then we should have reached this point long ago, and this conversation proves we have usable energy. Meaning that the universe has not been around forever. If this be so, then we are in need of a reason for the universe to suddenly come into existence, for we cannot have an effect (the universe) without a cause.

So why not intelligent design then?

If I had to grade you for your rhetoric, I would give that a solid F. You managed to use two non-sequiturs, a red herring, and a false premise all in the same paragraph. Who taught you formal argumentation, and where can I go to slap them?

Your explanation of thermodynamics earns a passing C-. I'd stick with the fundamentals next time, you only failed to show your work.

-Bigglesworth

Because Intelligent Design is not a science?



It cannot be said that "the universe" is a closed and isolated system as there are still forces at work that we do not fully understand but affect everything, like gravity. Therefore the Law does not apply directly to it.

who the hell are you a teacher i am still on spring brack i don't whont to listen to nor should i see a grade for at least two weeks.

I have to say that space travel would be wicked, but i do not think we will ever get that far... and as to all these laws i keep reading about.....ever heard "laws are ment to be broken"? or how about "PEOPLE screw up"...

Plus, these laws are not actual laws in the way you seem to understand them....these are called laws, cause it is something that has been observed...like the "LAW of nature" is not really a law, it is just something that has been observed

These laws are things that happen a lot over and over without change...but there are exceptions...

And matter can be destroyed....turning in to energy.. E=mc^2 read up on it

Huh. 47 megatons of dynamite releases the same amount of power as two-ish pounds of antimatter hitting two-ish pounds of matter. I knew you got a lot of raw energy out of one of those reactions, but I didn't think it was THAT much. That's... actually, pretty good to know. Despite that, it'd still take a lot more anti-matter than we can feasibly produce to render Earth uninhabitable.

As for underground UV rays, I had that thought as well but... what would the crops taste like?

Somebody....please....hit him....hard....in his head....many times....over and over again....until he learns about Physics and Science.

That equation proves that mass and energy are interchangeable, not that either can be destroyed.



It is a certainty that if energy is becoming unusable, and there is a finite amount of energy (i.e., there is no further energy being created), then eventually there will be NO usable energy. At which point, we will be quite unable to do anything, for all action requires (duh, that's the definition of) energy.

Now, we have calculated that it will take the universe, at most, forty billion years to run out of usable energy, from start to finish. If the universe has been around forever, then it has certainly been around for forty-billion years and one second. In which case we would have already run out of usable energy at least one second ago.

Energy, as stated before, is required for anything to occur. I would be unable to type this out, the internet unable to carry it, and you unable to read it without some usable energy. Meaning that we do, in fact, have usable energy. This means that the universe has not been around forever.

If it has been around for only a finite period of time, then there was a time at which it did not exist.

If there was a time when it did not exist, then due to the law of cause and effect, we need a reason for it to exist now.

Please specify what part of my reasoning you think flawed.

doesn't the 'c' in that equasion stand for the spped of light?

*I'm not trashing your reasonign or questioning your understanding, I just want clarification.*

lets put it this way even if we were able to travel at the speed of light the next closest star is 4 light years away. IE 4 years to get there and 4 to get back meaning round trip of 9 years plus however long you stay in system.