Mr Skeptic

Edit: Deleted because I misread Bascule's post 15

My usage of rest mass and relativistic mass stems more from the fact that they are well defined and universally agreed upon (as far as I know). Mass is ambiguous because some people use it to refer to rest mass and others use it to refer to relativistic mass. My current stance is to avoid using mass, since I understand energy and momentum better. I try to replace mass with these whenever possible, though I don't expect others to do this. This may change as I learn more. I hadn't thought about this. My preference is [math]F = \frac{dp}{dt}[/math] which I understand is always valid rather than [math]F = ma[/math] where m might change at relativistic speeds. I suppose it would depend on what sort of problems I am doing. That's not true. I am a great believer in Einstein's idea that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." As I understand it, gravitation is based on energy/relativistic mass (such that photons create a gravitational field), and rest mass can always be converted into energy (even if with great difficulty, by using fission/fusion, annihilation, or black holes). I only treat them as equivalent because I see little difference -- other than the difficulty of converting rest mass into energy. If there is some fundamental difference, I will treat them separately. ---- Sorry if I sound like a prick, but definitions are very important to me. In fact, definitions, laws of physics, and the math to understand them are the only things I focus on remembering in physics. If I get my definitions wrong, how can I hope to apply the laws that use them?

I don't see how it is wrong or even unfair to tax poor people less than rich people. In fact, it would be unfair to tax poor people as much as rich people. If you consider people like a "business" and living necessities like "costs of doing business", then taxing poor people who spend most of their money on necessities is like taxing a business based on its revenue rather than its profit. To rephrase what I said, necessities and basic living expenses should be tax-deductible.

Well, I'm quite glad that there haven't been any big wars since the atomic era. How can you say MAD is a lame adaptation when it has worked so well thus far? I thought global warming was the problem.

This always confused me. Isn't NOx an important natural fertilizer when caused by lightning? But people complain about manmade NOx being acid rain.

I too suggest seeking help. If you loose control of yourself, you may end up leaving yourself some ugly scars, or cutting a nerve or artery.

And this is why it is a good idea to specify rest mass or relativistic mass when talking about certain subjects, rather than just saying mass and hoping people understood what you said. More annoying, but worth it so people won't argue semantics. Martin, since relativistic mass is the sum of rest mass and kinetic energy, and is used in the same equations as mass is used, I think it is fair to to write it in terms of mass or energy. Rest mass can also be specified in terms of mass or energy. Personally, I think of mass and energy as the same "stuff" but with different units, with the caveat that rest mass/energy is unavailable unless you do difficult stuff like fission/fusion or annihilation. Not sure if that is a universal thought, though.

Also, why are half the people dumber than average?

Impossible. The government spent a long time making the tax system too confusing for people to realize just how much they are getting taxed. Look how much money the government gave me in my tax rebate! Also, I suspect this will result in an increase in imports (including sending out tourists).

Newton's Second Law. There is always friction in both directions. The friction on the moving object is against the direction of movement, and the friction on the stationary object is with the direction of the moving object's movement. Putting the friction on top or on the bottom makes no difference.

What if time really is imaginary, in a [math]\sqrt{-1}[/math] kind of way, and scaled to c? Then to measure a distance in spacetime, you would do [math]s = \sqrt{T^2+x^2+y^2+z^2}[/math], where [math]T = ict[/math], just like any other distance. Time has always been a "special" dimension.

Probably part of our policy of spreading democracy and toppling tyranny all around the world.

Oh, I have heard of electric dipoles before, but not any that were macroscopic and permanent. Just things like water molecules and such. The wiki article gives a recipe using waxes, and I never heard of such things. I'll make one if it makes a good toy

I too think the best solution to the wave particle duality is to say, "Well duh! It's a wave-particle (quantized wave?) just like everything else."

I just learned about electrets from wikipedia. Electrets are permanant electric dipoles, essentially the electrical analogue of magnets. My questions, then: 1) Why have I never heard of electrets before? Not in college, not in high school, and my physics prof wanted a journal reference before she would believe they exist. 2) Do electrets make good toys? If I'm not mistaken, small electrets would allow me to see an electric field, right?

Get one of these from Junkfunnel labs:

This is why it is important we learn genetic engineering ASAP. We don't need no stinkin' natural selection nomore

Best get off the internet then, cause that's computers communicating with other computers!

First time I heard it it was a blond woman. Much funnier because I was expecting a dumb blond joke right until the punchline Would a giant psychic dwarf be a medium medium?

It may be possible to observe from a photon's reference frame, but not with the currently discovered laws of physics. If you can replace relativity with a theory that does not break down at v=c, then you may be able to do that. However, if photons truly experience no time, than things from its point of view would look very ... weird.

Uh, past tense. Polls are closed, and Climate Audit won. http://2007.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog-1.php

Hiding? You must mean obeying. If you want all the states to follow a rule, you need to make that rule an amendment to the Constitution. Nobody is saying you can't do this, but there are rules for doing so and they must be followed. If you don't like this, then you need to repeal the 10th Amendment.

Pangloss, are you suggesting we abolish the 10th Amendment?

One 2 billionth is smaller than 1 billionth, but two 1 billionths is larger than 1 billionth.

There's already quite a few laws that are different from one state to the next. Why should the same not be done with drugs and abortions? Let all the potheads go to the pothead state, and the baby killers go to the baby killer state. If you like the rules in one better than the other, you can move there. The only "pointless" thing is that you can't make everyone else follow your morals. The only downside is that when you travel, you need to know the rules of two states. It already is somewhat this way, with different age of consent and drinking age in some states, and slightly different traffic laws. That is how the Constitution requires: any powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states, and the people.