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.

What would happen if someone were to offer you a Gardevoir for $100?

2»

Comments

  • Anon9mousAnon9mous Posts: 6,383Member, Friendly, Cool, Conversationalist ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some braining to do." ~Dasbloody
    "I'm about 0% sure that that is correct." ~Kirdneh
  • He_Stands_ThereHe_Stands_There Posts: 70Member ✭✭
    Anon9mous said:

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    Yay! That's two!

    We're making so much progress here!
  • Anon9mousAnon9mous Posts: 6,383Member, Friendly, Cool, Conversationalist ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Anon9mous said:

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    Yay! That's two!

    We're making so much progress here!
    I was chill from the start. We just had a guy who took his admiration WAY too seriously. Anyways, do you think my reaction is a good one?
    "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some braining to do." ~Dasbloody
    "I'm about 0% sure that that is correct." ~Kirdneh
  • He_Stands_ThereHe_Stands_There Posts: 70Member ✭✭
    Anon9mous said:

    Anon9mous said:

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    Yay! That's two!

    We're making so much progress here!
    I was chill from the start. We just had a guy who took his admiration WAY too seriously. Anyways, do you think my reaction is a good one?
    Well, considering you're agreeing with me it would be hard to take arms against you.

    I'm not here to judge though, I'm fine with however you chose to react.
  • Anon9mousAnon9mous Posts: 6,383Member, Friendly, Cool, Conversationalist ✭✭✭✭✭✭

    Anon9mous said:

    Anon9mous said:

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    Yay! That's two!

    We're making so much progress here!
    I was chill from the start. We just had a guy who took his admiration WAY too seriously. Anyways, do you think my reaction is a good one?
    Well, considering you're agreeing with me it would be hard to take arms against you.

    I'm not here to judge though, I'm fine with however you chose to react.
    I meant with the offer that this entire thread is about. :3
    "Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some braining to do." ~Dasbloody
    "I'm about 0% sure that that is correct." ~Kirdneh
  • He_Stands_ThereHe_Stands_There Posts: 70Member ✭✭
    Anon9mous said:

    Anon9mous said:

    Anon9mous said:

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    I understand that. Gardevoir was one of my fav's when I played pokemon, and I wasn't sexually attracted.
    Alright, that's one down!

    Now I just have to convince the rest of the forum as to my relationship with gardevoir.
    I'm already cool with it, man. Platonic loves are some of the best loves!
    Yay! That's two!

    We're making so much progress here!
    I was chill from the start. We just had a guy who took his admiration WAY too seriously. Anyways, do you think my reaction is a good one?
    Well, considering you're agreeing with me it would be hard to take arms against you.

    I'm not here to judge though, I'm fine with however you chose to react.
    I meant with the offer that this entire thread is about. :3
    Oh yeah, scientific probing and what not is all grand.

    My only critique in that you should have rented it to the scientists instead, that way you get two paydays for your initial investment.
  • Chaotic_NeutralChaotic_Neutral Posts: 3,440Member, Wiener ✭✭✭✭✭

    The assumptions of this guy being Gabidou makes me want to cringe.

    Well then, who am I Mr. Smarty Pants ponce von Guess Em All Profiler?
    Someone.
    Does that mean your original callous accusation has been redacted?

    Or would you persist in being so sadistic?

    is this gabidou

    No, this is He_Stands_There. I'm unique, so don't try to shove me into someone else's binary.
    What we're saying (me, at least, I don't know about anyone else) is that your likings are somewhat similar to Gabidou's.
    I think gardevoir is just popular because she's so lovable and sexy in a completely platonic way.
    How does that make sense?
    It makes a lot more sense when you come to accept the latent platonic appeal of pokemon and refuse to divulge further into the matter.
    How many of your posts don't contain the word platonic?
    Good question, and quite honestly there will only be as many as needed to reassert the fact that I am not attracted to gardevoir.
    Anon9mous said:

    Well, I'd buy her (assuming it is a her), and I'd get researchers to study the living crap out of it (without hurting it... permanently...). I'd then sell it to someone who has a strange obsession with Gardevoirs for a lot of money.

    Gotta hit me up after all those test are done. I'll show her the time of her life (platonically of course).
    Why am I doubting you?

    I dunno, maybe because I read a book?

    ^The book!^
    As much as you want to pretend, self-awareness is not a get-out-of autism free card.

    "HEY, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD"
    -EDUPS
    [insert tilde here]
  • thomasnottellingyouthomasnottellingyou Posts: 1Member
    i would bring him to my house and turn on the TV for some entertainment for him and tell him not to leave, i would then grab my knife and rob the gas station nearby, then i would come back and give him the money and have him give me the gardevoir, and it better be a real gardevoir or he's a dead mother-fucker
  • ViniVini Posts: 3,587Member, Friendly, Conversationalist ✭✭✭✭✭

    not the best necro we've had tbh

    I'd buy two and breed the fuck outta them. Then drop off all the poor Ralts around the world, where they'll eventually grow powerful enough to cause the aPokélypse.

    No, wait, wasn't aPokélypse already taken by that uncanny awful movie?

    Well, either way it's the good end we deserve.

  • leunleun Posts: 104Member ✭✭✭
    Yeah then i'd fuck it for a bit until I'm bored then sell it to Gabidou for like $10k
  • iceklausiceklaus Posts: 1,188Member ✭✭✭
    I'd train it to caress my hair and put me to sleep.
    the ones who dare have lives woth dying for

    shhhhh... nothing to see here
  • sharklasersharklaser Posts: 75Member ✭✭
    buy low sell high
    what's a signature
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Posts: 982Member, Helpful ✭✭
    buy Gardevoir, then become friends!
    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.
  • BrainstormBrainstorm Posts: 11,223Member ✭✭✭✭✭
    I’d buy a good pet for a hundred dollars, but this one is different...
    It attacc
    It protecc
    But more importantly...

    IT TALCC
    "Calm your caps, bro." -Brainstorm

    the following link is the best thing that could happen to you: http://forum.dashnet.org/discussions/tagged/brainstormgame

    Currently managing a large-based forum game.. DashNet RPG! Play it now: http://forum.dashnet.org/discussion/15882/dashnet-rpg-dashnets-greatest-forum-game-of-all-time
    Dashnet RPG Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/6301gzzx
  • AbsolAbsol Posts: 334Member, Wiener ✭✭✭
    hot damn anon9mous is in this thread? this is old as hell
    Why does nobody on this site play FE
  • SwingWingSwingWing Posts: 34Member ✭✭
    Alternatively: You can have a free gardevoir but it's the one from youtu be/gnThovpYc70.
  • YosukeHanamuraYosukeHanamura Posts: 982Member, Helpful ✭✭
    Oh, i forgot. I will train them to play Persona 3 and 4.
    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.
  • lennonluiz0907lennonluiz0907 Posts: 2,818Member, Friendly, Conversationalist ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited April 2018
    I'd refuse because apparently the mere idea of having a gardevoir could cause a total global wipeout by mini black holes.

    Thanks, Pokédex! You dick.
    The best people in the world are the ones that try to make others feel better about life.
    The best feeling in the world is seeing someone smile for the first time in a long time.
    The best moment in the world is when you hear a heartfelt thank you.
    The best thing in the world is a hearty hug when you're feeling lonely.
    The best remedy in the world is helping others when you feel unable to help yourself.
  • BloodScourgeBloodScourge Posts: 111Member ✭✭
    A Gardevoir thread with no signs or traces of Gabidou? Something here isn't right...

    Anyway I'd take it, why the hell not?

  • leunleun Posts: 104Member ✭✭✭
    Absol said:

    hot damn anon9mous is in this thread? this is old as hell

    what happened to him
2»
Sign In or Register to comment.