/sci/ - Science & Math

>biology
>hard science

since we can't really find antimatter just hanging out anywhere, it takes an enormous amount of energy to generate it

thus, the energy we would gain from antimatter would never be more than the energy we used to create it (in fact, we would get less energy out because of thermodynamics and efficiency losses and whatnot)

however, this does raise the possibility of energy storage, since energy stored in the form of antimatter would have the highest possible energy density we could achieve

we don't use it as storage because it's hard to contain, since it would just go kablooie if it came into contact with matter

What do you think?

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-biological-cancer-cells.html

>>3882431
>also the concerns such a long trip would have on the psyche of astronauts
Oh come off it.
Explorers that used to traverse the rough seas for months on end with far worse living conditions than the astronauts didn't go mad, and with stuff like video games, terabytes of movie and TV show storage, and (Although delayed) contact with Earth, they'll also have much of the human race supporting the launch of man to a new world. They'll be bloody bored, but I don't think they'll go mad.

>>3742278

>>3653084
>listen to anything I made even as recently as two years ago
>want to claw my eyes out
Welp

>>3569617
I don't feel like vaporizing people in an orgy.

>>3514043

....those videos are pretty good

>>3276230
I really was expecting Trolololo when I was about to click that link.

Are zoo's good or bad for the animals?

>>2241927
>mfw

GRfag here.

If there are two people in a gravitational field along the same radial line, what is the time dilation factor between them. If one sends out a signal every second, how frequently will the other receive it?

>Sub-orbital spaceflight is progress?
>mfw

It makes sense that only popscifags can care about private spaceflight and hate climate change in the same thought process.
From an objective standpoint, their paper makes sense.

P.S. If you actually read the paper, you'd know that it had nothing to do with Carbon Dioxide related climate change theories and is therefore largely unrelated to your current standpoint on the topic.

>>2010626
>Iron Man
>Good science film
>mfw

What is this I don't even

>mfw

>highschool
>teacher explains to us why it's easier for plants to grow under the sun
>he then asks "Do you think it is possible to replace the sun?"
>girl raises hand
> "I think it's not , because the sun is something superior , even now scientists can't explain how does it work and we will never understand , therefore we will never be able to replace the sun"

>mfw i was about to spit in her face


Greenstory thread?

>>1722085
>>1722087
Goosemind