Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Please read the forum rules before posting.



Check if you are posting in the correct category.



The Off Topic section is not meant for discussing Cookie Clicker.

How do you like my game http://orteil.dashnet.org/igm/?g=a2DYj249

YellowmonkeyYellowmonkey Member Posts: 25

How do you like my game http://orteil.dashnet.org/igm/?g=a2DYj249 14 votes

Great
28%
222lawlawlawl_gamesBekfast12345678arklypurpleYellowmonkey 4 votes
Good
21%
MagpieMcCorkleChris_P_Baconyetisyny 3 votes
Ok
14%
YosukeHanamuratobias_lead 2 votes
Bad
0%
Horrible
0%
I Like Tacos
35%
EricBolton1993DtjiPsimfansTobi19EOTW[Deleted User] 5 votes

Comments

  • YellowmonkeyYellowmonkey Member Posts: 25
    Great
    I can't complain i like tacos to
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 846 ✭✭
    Ok
    WARNING: you have to remove the '0' at the end
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Member Posts: 846 ✭✭
    Ok
    Played it before. Has potential.
    In modern physics, antimatter is defined as a material composed of the antiparticle (or "partners") to the corresponding particles of ordinary matter.

    In theory, a particle and its anti-particle have the same mass as one another, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge. A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner is known to lead to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs.

    Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc2.

    Antimatter particles bind with one another to form antimatter, just as ordinary particles bind to form normal matter. For example, a positron (the antiparticle of the electron) and an antiproton (the antiparticle of the proton) can form an antihydrogen atom. Physical principles indicate that complex antimatter atomic nuclei are possible, as well as anti-atoms corresponding to the known chemical elements.

    There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is composed almost entirely of ordinary matter, as opposed to an equal mixture of matter and antimatter. This asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the visible universe is one of the great unsolved problems in physics. The process by which this inequality between matter and antimatter particles developed is called baryogenesis.

    Antimatter in the form of anti-atoms is one of the most difficult materials to produce. Individual antimatter particles, however, are commonly produced by particle accelerators and in some types of radioactive decay. The nuclei of antihelium have been artificially produced with difficulty. These are the most complex anti-nuclei so far observed.

    Formally, antimatter particles can be defined by their negative baryon number or lepton number, while "normal" (non-antimatter) matter particles have a positive baryon or lepton number. These two classes of particles are the antiparticle partners of one another.

    The idea of negative matter appears in past theories of matter that have now been abandoned. Using the once popular vortex theory of gravity, the possibility of matter with negative gravity was discussed by William Hicks in the 1880s. Between the 1880s and the 1890s, Karl Pearson proposed the existence of "squirts" and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson's theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into.

    The term antimatter was first used by Arthur Schuster in two rather whimsical letters to Nature in 1898, in which he coined the term. He hypothesized antiatoms, as well as whole antimatter solar systems, and discussed the possibility of matter and antimatter annihilating each other. Schuster's ideas were not a serious theoretical proposal, merely speculation, and like the previous ideas, differed from the modern concept of antimatter in that it possessed negative gravity.

    The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. These were discovered by Carl D. Anderson in 1932 and named positrons (a portmanteau of "positive electron"). Although Dirac did not himself use the term antimatter, its use follows on naturally enough from antielectrons, antiprotons, etc. A complete periodic table of antimatter was envisaged by Charles Janet in 1929.

    The Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation states that antimatter and antiparticles are regular particles traveling backward in time.

    There are compelling theoretical reasons to believe that, aside from the fact that antiparticles have different signs on all charges (such as electric charge and spin), matter and antimatter have exactly the same properties. This means a particle and its corresponding antiparticle must have identical masses and decay lifetimes (if unstable). It also implies that, for example, a star made up of antimatter (an "antistar") will shine just like an ordinary star. This idea was tested experimentally in 2016 by the ALPHA experiment, which measured the transition between the two lowest energy states of antihydrogen. The results, which are identical to that of hydrogen, confirmed the validity of quantum mechanics for antimatter.

    Positrons were reported in November 2008 to have been generated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in larger numbers than by any previous synthetic process. A laser drove electrons through a gold target's nuclei, which caused the incoming electrons to emit energy quanta that decayed into both matter and antimatter. Positrons were detected at a higher rate and in greater density than ever previously detected in a laboratory. Previous experiments made smaller quantities of positrons using lasers and paper-thin targets; however, new simulations showed that short, ultra-intense lasers and millimeter-thick gold are a far more effective source.

    Antimatter cannot be stored in a container made of ordinary matter because antimatter reacts with any matter it touches, annihilating itself and an equal amount of the container. Antimatter in the form of charged particles can be contained by a combination of electric and magnetic fields, in a device called a Penning trap. This device cannot, however, contain antimatter that consists of uncharged particles, for which atomic traps are used. In particular, such a trap may use the dipole moment (electric or magnetic) of the trapped particles. At high vacuum, the matter or antimatter particles can be trapped and cooled with slightly off-resonant laser radiation using a magneto-optical trap or magnetic trap. Small particles can also be suspended with optical tweezers, using a highly focused laser beam.

    In 2011, CERN scientists were able to preserve antihydrogen for approximately 17 minutes.

    Scientists claim that antimatter is the costliest material to make. In 2006, Gerald Smith estimated $250 million could produce 10 milligrams of positrons (equivalent to $25 billion per gram); in 1999, NASA gave a figure of $62.5 trillion per gram of antihydrogen. This is because production is difficult (only very few antiprotons are produced in reactions in particle accelerators), and because there is higher demand for other uses of particle accelerators. According to CERN, it has cost a few hundred million Swiss francs to produce about 1 billionth of a gram (the amount used so far for particle/antiparticle collisions). In comparison, to produce the first atomic weapon, the cost of the Manhattan Project was estimated at $23 billion with inflation during 2007.

    Several studies funded by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts are exploring whether it might be possible to use magnetic scoops to collect the antimatter that occurs naturally in the Van Allen belt of the Earth, and ultimately, the belts of gas giants, like Jupiter, hopefully at a lower cost per gram.

    Matter–antimatter reactions have practical applications in medical imaging, such as positron emission tomography (PET). In positive beta decay, a nuclide loses surplus positive charge by emitting a positron (in the same event, a proton becomes a neutron, and a neutrino is also emitted). Nuclides with surplus positive charge are easily made in a cyclotron and are widely generated for medical use. Antiprotons have also been shown within laboratory experiments to have the potential to treat certain cancers, in a similar method currently used for ion (proton) therapy.

    Antimatter has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities, and there is no evidence that it will ever be feasible. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself.
  • Chris_P_BaconChris_P_Bacon Member Posts: 19 ✭✭
    Good
    Yeah has potential, just like my game. Only difference is, I'm just never gonna do anything with my game's potential. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • YellowmonkeyYellowmonkey Member Posts: 25
    Great
    yeah
  • yetisynyyetisyny Member Posts: 3
    edited August 16
    Good
    It’s a good one, maybe even great (Mining Clicker .1 by Yellowmonkey). Better than most of the others made with Idle Game Maker, it has good graphics, good scaling of the prices of things, upgrades, etc. Although it does get quite slow after awhile for the later stages, something I did not notice at first. And at first it seems simple but it gets a bit more complex later on, and it does get a bit frustrating how it is slower later on but I guess that is better than an idle game that is too easy that can be completely beaten in less than a day.

    I would say that I have noticed one problem, the descriptions of upgrades do not always describe everything that the upgrades do. Sometimes they leave something important out, like if they make clicking 10 times as powerful but the description does not even mention this. I can’t really rate it as the top possible rating if the descriptions of upgrades are not entirely accurate and leave vital information out, information the player needs to know in order to spend their resources wisely to progress faster.

    Also it would be funny if you added BitCoin mines and other unusual types of mines, ethereum is a common cryptocurrency that sounds like a mineral, unobtanium is another one from the Avatar movie, also mythril (spelled with the word “myth” in it because it is a myth), also neutronium which is what neutron stars are made of (kinda hard to mine a neutron star), and of course tiberium (from the Command & Conquer games), and orichalcum is a common one in science fiction and fantasy too (not as common as mythril but it appears in both Indiana Jones movies and Japanese RPGs such as Sword of Mana), and speaking of mana you need mana mines (where else to get magical energy from?), and obviously you need to have dark matter mines (Futurama anyone?), and the fictional saturnium is a lesser-known alternative to plutonium and uranium and neptunium which actually exist (instead of a “rare earth” element it is a “rare space” element), and of course infernum is the mineral that you have to mine all the way down into hell to get (hell is an inferno after all and infernum is a real Latin adjective that means “hellish” but you would use it as a noun instead), and there would be a samsonite mine (which samsonite luggage is made out of, mined from the ruins of the pagan temple Samson knocked down), and a carbonite mine (Darth Vader had to get his carbonite from somewhere, probably the forest moon of Endor mined by ewoks), and most important of all is solaronite (from the classic Ed Wood film Plan 9 from Outer Space, you mine it from the Sun itself obviously). So the list is BitCoin, ethereum, unobtanium, mythril, neutronium, tiberium, orichalcum, mana, dark matter, saturnium, infernum, samsonite, carbonite, and solaronite, all awesome things to mine in a mining clicker game.
    Post edited by yetisyny on
  • YellowmonkeyYellowmonkey Member Posts: 25
    Great
    Thanks for the feedback. I really Appreciate it.
Sign In or Register to comment.