Cap'n Refsmmat

Dave is sitting at the computer laughing his head off. They know math good enough, they're not dumb.

I recently got a book called "Thinking Physics" which is a book demonstrating physics with cartoony examples and such (it's fun). However I noted a few problems, and I'm not sure if I'm right or not. The first one, on which I know I am right, is that he claims that energy has mass. This is demonstrated by the following example: You have a box strong enough to withstand a nuclear explosion and keep all the energy inside of it (not likely, but say you have it). You detonate a nuclear bomb inside it. Then you weigh it. According to physics, some of the mass will have simply vanished and turned to energy (remember e=mc2?). But he says that it will still weigh the same, because that energy has mass. Of course, energy does not have mass. For the next one he gives this example: You are in a spacecraft going very fast (not any specific speed, just fast) and you are passing a constellation of 3 stars, which you call A, B and C, all an equal distance apart. A B C you (going right) Suddenly, B explodes. Because you are going to the right, he says, the light from the explosion will appear to reach C first. This goes against my understanding of relativity, which states that light always appears to be going the speed of light relative to the observer. Who is right? oops... I figured it out now, but still, is that right? One more: He says: If a proton and an electron collide (in a vacuum) you'd think they'd cancel each other out electrically. Instead, he says, the electron (not the proton!) would envelope the PROTON, not the other way around. He says electrons are very big, so it would swallow up the proton. And then, the resulting particle would still have energy! Even though protons and electrons carry the EXACT same amount of energy (except one is negative) the thing would still have energy! Is that right either? That's all for now... I'm not too good at this, so tell me if he is right, please.

Don't get too drunk!

I second that motion.

General Discussion=Talk About Anything

Why?

My socks are still on.

Like Adam. Or, ExtraDense, but he's hardly ever on anymore.

If he's not an english expert, he's not going to find it in the proof read, and microsoft Word thinks myriads is a word, and his peers aren't all going to be english majors, are they?

Just because he isn't an english major/expert doesn't mean he is an absolute idiot at science.

oh... yeah.

0.9 is 0.01 less than one. edit: wait until I figure out how to use the denominator tags. Edit 2: Did it! Edit 3: made it 0.01

That's not an explanation.

Oooohh... I get it now. Sorry.

Can you stop double posting like that? Makes you look like you're trying to get a high post count. There's an edit button that lets you add on to your post.

edit: Just to clarify, I didn't understand that at all. Are you saying he's right or wrong?

We're talking about c, the speed of light in a vacuum. Read the whole thread before you post in it.

That's why I said, "Whatever." In other words, it's impossible to explain.

So really, the moon and the Earth are kind of chasing each other, going in a circle, one always behind the other? NO. Do you have PROOF?

Hmmm... It would be hilarious, but there's a risk with it. I suppose your decision to ban him was right. I had never seen that one post of his. We need a psuedoscientist around here! Where's Pinch Paxton?

The universe is whatever all of the galaxies are in. And as for there being other universes, we really can't be sure, because some say that our universe is infinite, but then there couldn't be others. Whatever.

What center of gravity? The center of gravity of the Earth or the Moon?

Explain please.