|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
03-03-2006, 01:03 PM
|
#16 | ||
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oxford, UK.
Posts: 2,330
|
Quote:
"You care for nothing but shooting, dogs and rat-catching, and will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family" |
||
|
|
|
03-03-2006, 02:48 PM
|
#17 |
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
yes, exactly.
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips. ~ Philiboid Studge |
|
|
|
|
03-03-2006, 11:23 PM
|
#18 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Sorry, I didn't get back yesterday. Anyway, to clear things up, I freely admit that I am a retard. Besides which, I do know that AZ is only a temp, not really a spatial term. I just use this term because I always could abreviate AZ when it was appropriate, so it just stuck. But what I mean to say is that I believe reaching absolute zero (which, just so you all know, I know is impossible) would theoretically destroy matter. If you could get the particles to stop moving. I know getting the particles to stop is impossible, but I meant this as a theoretical anyway. Perhaps it was a bad theoretical.
Actually, never mind, there is no perhaps about it. It was bad. Here was my reasoning behind it. Because there is antimatter in existance as well, it would make sense that in order to get something from nothing, -1+1=0. So, AZ would be nothing. There would be no kinetic energy where nothing is, no potential energy where nothing is, and no mass where nothing is. I figured that the quantum principles don't really apply, but I also freely admit that I know nothing about them. |
|
|
 |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:56 AM.