Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:10:04 AMLike I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.I have no problem with you doing your chemist work and viewing things and working things out. Fair enough to you. I don't have any problem with that.I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:10:04 AMLike I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.
Like I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 10:27:09 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:10:04 AMLike I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.I have no problem with you doing your chemist work and viewing things and working things out. Fair enough to you. I don't have any problem with that.I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.Have you ever seen a bacterium? How about a grain of pollen? Have you ever seen oxygen?edit: You ignored my more important question, what is the likelihood that my field of science is the only one that isn't a hoax? You are going in the wrong direction. I don't discount everything. I accept quite a lot of things. I don't accept nuclear atoms, what more can I say?
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 10:16:31 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:10:04 AMLike I say Lolzy, I cannot prove they don't exists or haven't been seen, I accept that. You are only going on the word of whoever has seen these, so in reality, you are no more clued up than I am, so the only difference here is, you accept them and I don't.Okay, look, let me simplify this for you. I am an analytical chemist. From what I have seen with my own eyes, the things that I was taught about chemistry in school all work. I have verified many equations, I've run countless experiments and analyzed tons of data in my field. So I have seen a lot with my own eyes, and I wasn't ever lied to in school.So what you're telling me is that I'm supposed to believe that either a) science is a lie, and all the instruments and analytical equipment that I use has all been rigged to give the results as they should be with an unlimited number of analytes, or b) since I've confirmed things in my field, all -other- science is a lie, and only my field is correct. The random field that I chose to work in just happens to be the only honest, data-crunching field in all of science, and all other fields are a ruse.I think a more likely explanation is that science isn't rigged, it's not a conspiracy, and much like me, there are scientists in all other fields that do good research and try very hard to advance their studies about the way the world actually works. Occam's razor agrees with me.I have no problem with you doing your chemist work and viewing things and working things out. Fair enough to you. I don't have any problem with that.I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.Have you ever seen a bacterium? How about a grain of pollen? Have you ever seen oxygen?edit: You ignored my more important question, what is the likelihood that my field of science is the only one that isn't a hoax?
Nope, I haven't seen most things under a microscope that are tiny, just basic stuff.
I just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:21:10 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it. You are saying that, not me.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:30:08 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:28:41 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:21:10 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it. You are saying that, not me.Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in? Considering I have seen none of them under a microscope, I have to use my own common sense and logic and this is what it tells me.I can breathe, so I generally accept that I'm breathing in air that consists of oxygen in whatever form it is. I can't prove that what they say about it's make up is true but I can accept it and the same goes with bacteria, as in we can see it growing on bread as mould, yet cannot see the bacteria , itself, except what's manifesting from it, so I can accept that.I do not accept atoms that can magically fission for years on end without any energy source contributing to the amount of energy produced and as to why they heat up.Also, chunks of metal blowing cities up is not only illogical to me, it's down right silly, even pathetic and to think, people do accept it, simply because it is an unknown,just like they accept all other things. The point is, it's up to the individual as to what they go with and I do not go with magical super heated, city destroying atoms coming from , basically chinks of led like metal that is more dense than lead, yet as hard as the hardest metals.It's a fantasy, a scaremongering clever tactic and a classic moneymaker, as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:28:41 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:21:10 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it. You are saying that, not me.Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in?
I don't accept nuclear atoms, what more can I say?
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:45:12 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:41:53 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:30:08 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:28:41 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:21:10 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it. You are saying that, not me.Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in? Considering I have seen none of them under a microscope, I have to use my own common sense and logic and this is what it tells me.I can breathe, so I generally accept that I'm breathing in air that consists of oxygen in whatever form it is. I can't prove that what they say about it's make up is true but I can accept it and the same goes with bacteria, as in we can see it growing on bread as mould, yet cannot see the bacteria , itself, except what's manifesting from it, so I can accept that.I do not accept atoms that can magically fission for years on end without any energy source contributing to the amount of energy produced and as to why they heat up.Also, chunks of metal blowing cities up is not only illogical to me, it's down right silly, even pathetic and to think, people do accept it, simply because it is an unknown,just like they accept all other things. The point is, it's up to the individual as to what they go with and I do not go with magical super heated, city destroying atoms coming from , basically chinks of led like metal that is more dense than lead, yet as hard as the hardest metals.It's a fantasy, a scaremongering clever tactic and a classic moneymaker, as far as I'm concerned.It's not magic, it's science.Okay, so what you're saying is that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists in the world are in on the hoax?That's not what I'm saying at all.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:41:53 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:30:08 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 11:28:41 AMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 11:21:10 AMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 10:24:52 AMI just don't accept nuclear atoms, that's all I can say. I have never seen one, you haven't and nobody on here has seen one, except in a picture given out that says, "this is an atom."I'm not buying into it, one bit.This logic says that since you have never seen bacteria or oxygen with your own eyes then you don't believe in it. You are saying that, not me.Okay so what is the difference between oxygen and bacteria, which you have never seen yet still believe in, and atoms, which you have never seen and don't believe in? Considering I have seen none of them under a microscope, I have to use my own common sense and logic and this is what it tells me.I can breathe, so I generally accept that I'm breathing in air that consists of oxygen in whatever form it is. I can't prove that what they say about it's make up is true but I can accept it and the same goes with bacteria, as in we can see it growing on bread as mould, yet cannot see the bacteria , itself, except what's manifesting from it, so I can accept that.I do not accept atoms that can magically fission for years on end without any energy source contributing to the amount of energy produced and as to why they heat up.Also, chunks of metal blowing cities up is not only illogical to me, it's down right silly, even pathetic and to think, people do accept it, simply because it is an unknown,just like they accept all other things. The point is, it's up to the individual as to what they go with and I do not go with magical super heated, city destroying atoms coming from , basically chinks of led like metal that is more dense than lead, yet as hard as the hardest metals.It's a fantasy, a scaremongering clever tactic and a classic moneymaker, as far as I'm concerned.It's not magic, it's science.Okay, so what you're saying is that all the nuclear engineers and nuclear physicists in the world are in on the hoax?
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 02:34:52 PMDo you think radiation has energy? It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.
Do you think radiation has energy?
It's no slur if it's fact.
Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 03:32:47 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 02:52:34 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 02:34:52 PMDo you think radiation has energy? It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?Yes but they use energy to give out energy.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 02:52:34 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 02:34:52 PMDo you think radiation has energy? It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?
Quote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use?
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:59:36 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?
Quote from: markjo on March 22, 2013, 04:42:06 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 03:32:47 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 02:52:34 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 02:34:52 PMDo you think radiation has energy? It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?Yes but they use energy to give out energy.Do you understand what alpha radiation is? If so, please tell us what you think it is in your own words.Is it a less harmful radiation that when ionised can be used in things like smoke detectors?
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 03:32:47 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 02:52:34 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 02:34:52 PMDo you think radiation has energy? It all depends on what you mean by radiation. There's more than one radiation.Yes, I'll explain. The type of radiation emitted from radioactive atoms (alpha particles, beta particles, gamma rays, neutrons, etc.), do any or all of those have energy?Yes but they use energy to give out energy.Do you understand what alpha radiation is? If so, please tell us what you think it is in your own words.
Oh ok then.Anyway, lumps of metal smacked together do not blow up cities.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 05:39:18 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:20:53 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:59:36 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two? What would make it collide with something hard enough for it to split it in two?
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:20:53 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:59:36 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two?
What makes the particles shoot out at high speed?
Not ever.
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:31:29 PMNot ever. If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion.
Quote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 06:35:45 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:31:29 PMNot ever. If only you could back this up with something other than your opinion. It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Aether is the characteristic of action or inaction of charged & noncharged particals.
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative.
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 22, 2013, 06:39:01 PMIt's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative.It's also not reasonable for someone to make claims that they know that they can't prove.
It's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.
Good luck with believing all that
If only you could back up what you are saying.
Quote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 06:53:21 PMQuote from: PizzaPlanet on March 22, 2013, 06:39:01 PMIt's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.Your logic does not work here. The situation already has happened. He needs to disprove events that have already accrued. He needs the disprove current events. He has not done this. He has not shown that fission does not exist like modern science says it does. Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:39:53 PMGood luck with believing all thatIf you really think every alpha particle that is emitted comes from the surface of an atom then you are in for a surprise.Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:31:29 PMIf only you could back up what you are saying.I have provided many arguments backed up with evidence in the thread that you ran away from.You have provided evidence of nothing, nothing at all.
Quote from: PizzaPlanet on March 22, 2013, 06:39:01 PMIt's not reasonable to ask him to prove a negative. Instead, try to provide evidence of the positive. A situation where someone smashed two pieces of metal very hard and, in result, blew up a city.Your logic does not work here. The situation already has happened. He needs to disprove events that have already accrued. He needs the disprove current events. He has not done this. He has not shown that fission does not exist like modern science says it does. Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:39:53 PMGood luck with believing all thatIf you really think every alpha particle that is emitted comes from the surface of an atom then you are in for a surprise.Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 06:31:29 PMIf only you could back up what you are saying.I have provided many arguments backed up with evidence in the thread that you ran away from.
I don't need to get anywhere, I'm fairly certain nuclear weapons are a big lie and I have a major suspicion that nuclear power isn't what we think it is, either.You carry on believing everything you're told, it's fine with me.
Quote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 06:18:19 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:50:22 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 05:39:18 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:20:53 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:59:36 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two? What would make it collide with something hard enough for it to split it in two?Particles get shot out at very high speeds which means very high energy.What makes the particles shoot out at high speed?
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:50:22 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 05:39:18 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 05:20:53 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:59:36 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:46:00 PMQuote from: lolzy on March 22, 2013, 04:42:11 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:38:07 PMQuote from: sokarul on March 22, 2013, 04:12:39 PMQuote from: sceptimatic on March 22, 2013, 04:01:29 PMYes but they use energy to give out energy.What energy do they use? Well explain their uses in life and what you are getting at, instead of playing it safe.I'm trying to ask you if radioactive atoms can release energy, in the form of radiation, which would come from decay of an unstable nucleus.Yes. Everything decays, so yes.Okay, so can you admit that a particle ejected from one atom's nucleus could collide with another atom's nucleus?I'm not sure, it depends on what energy is used to eject it but seeing as you are pushing it out, go on . I'll go with you and say possibly.Okay, now if that particle collided hard enough with the nucleus, could it theoretically break the already unstable nucleus in two? What would make it collide with something hard enough for it to split it in two?Particles get shot out at very high speeds which means very high energy.