e=mc^2energy won't make matter appear out off thin air.
.
What do I think this is?e=mc^2
What do you think matter is? However in terms of game balance I think youre right, just a bad example there.
What do I think this is?
That said, as far as the current science go, the particles are never formed, nor lost.
Not having done a major in chemistry and particle study, it's basically as far as I go, but I never saw the E=mc² used to create either energy or matter, it is not a calculation, but an equation.
It's not theoretical and can actually be derived.A theoretical formula involving mass, energy and speed.
To answer this statement, you need to know that E = mc² is not complete and only deals with particles at rest, ie. not moving, therefore the energy of the particle makes the mass with nothing extra, so, no mass, no energy. It works. But I'm guessing you were talking about particles that mare moving, so I present the full equation for a moving particle.Well, not exactly, because you can't have a mass of 0 or an energy of 0, or else both need to be 0.
Actually, the equation is exactly why nuclear power works - Iron (Fe) has the highest binding energy per nucleon - going either up from Hydrogen (Fusion) or down from Uranium (Fission) results in a lower total mass; the amount of energy released from this process is governed by the equation.
Modern physics and engineering does make use of this. Also, experimental observations (Casimir Effect) of vacuum energy shows us that particles do randomly pop in and out of existence; the question is whether those particles, in their brief existence, happen to interact with the force-carrying boson of the Higgs field (the thing we just found) and therefore acquire real mass.
We haven't mastered the use of energy to create matter, but we certainly have gone the other way with it - it's more than just a theory.
This is the only thing you have done thus far that I like.
No offense meant I just don't like TE much and have no use for lexicon.Ouch. Thanks, I guess?
Of course, there's also the debate about 'existing' or 'not existing' which is very vaguely defined as 'something perceptible', when it might be more accurately described as 'we haven't figured out how to find it yet'. Not even getting into the Uncertainty Principle and the question of if our observation techniques are what caused it to occur in the first place, bringing into question its existence as an illusion or reality, which one must then try to define.Modern physics and engineering does make use of this. Also, experimental observations (Casimir Effect) of vacuum energy shows us that particles do randomly pop in and out of existence; the question is whether those particles, in their brief existence, happen to interact with the force-carrying boson of the Higgs field (the thing we just found) and therefore acquire real mass.
Except the amount of energy needed doesn't increase exponentially, it is a linear relationship. If it takes E to get mass M, then it takes 2E to get mass 2M.However, it would take an extreme amount of energy to be able to create even a small amount of actual matter, since you're looking at a log scale. And that amount of energy increases exponentially the more matter you try to create, even with a theoretical 'perfect efficiency' technique which, quite bluntly, exists only in the fevered imaginations of mathematicians. We simply don't have the power source necessary to make the attempt. Yet.
Nah, I'm talking more about square-cube law. As the size increases, the volume increases significantly faster.Except the amount of energy needed doesn't increase exponentially, it is a linear relationship. If it takes E to get mass M, then it takes 2E to get mass 2M.
Looking at E=mc² (assuming we make a stationary object) then it is clear. The c² never changes it's value, it is always ~9x10^16, so E α m with.
Even looking at the full equation the + pc doesn't change anything, it's just adding another constant, nothing exponential about it.
In a different way, the equation for a straight line is y=Mx+A. In this case y = E, M = c², x = m and A = pc. So, we have a straight line which means a linear relationship.
The induction smelter richslag/platinum exploit is another one that is probably getting closed due to Mindcrack since almost all of them that took the IC2 route exploited it to get all their iridium. So having big name youtubers play FTB and especially the ones who are good at meta gaming is a very good thing for the long term heath and well being of the packs.
Did it make you curious to see what they were doing once you had seen this thread and the comments in it?Believe it or not, I hadn't even heard of Etho til this thread and in general I just don't follow any of the big Youtubers/streamers at all.
Did it make you curious to see what they were doing once you had seen this thread and the comments in it?